






</**fS**\<f \^&X % \&* **/*•?$•***<? 'V/S? 



„^ 



fi- 



A. o 






5> <Ca 



*W 









v^°^ 





>% ^°*.-^ait>o .Aii&rX V.-^--* 




^«« .v^iw- ** ^ :jGllft2&< '*W •*- 



>*- e v^ T, v V'^s 1 *^ %.'^~%°- 





♦ 4*. 











«n*' 



A* V *V 



V*V —. V o*° ..-.V* 





* A V 




■> r % k ^ Tr ^ v ^' ; ^r'\/ %*^ T *> ' . 



^^ 









7vT» A 



♦ V ^ 
^ ^ 



/.!^^>^ ^\»a-.% ^°»^ik-% ^ v » 

*<4» rtV • • 






9a. •••!• a. 








o^ .•••^ <; 



o. ♦•fi # a« 



In the United States Patent Office. 



In the Matter of the Interference 

Between the application of Henry Carmichael, for Letters 
Patent for Machine for forming Hollow- Ware from Wood 
Pulp, filed Dec. 11, 1885, and Letters Patent granted to 
Joseph Gr. Bodge, Oct. 30, 1883, No. 287,614, for a similar 
invention. 



DEPOSITIONS OF WITNESSES, 

Taken on behalf of Joseph G-. Bodge at the office of Wilbur 
F. Lunt, corner of Exchange and Middle Streets, Portland, 
Me., this 28th day of May, a. d. 1886, beginning at 9:30 

A: M. 



Present — James H. Lange, Wilbur F. Lunt, of Counsel for 
Bodge. 

Charles F. Libby, Counsel for Carmichael. 



It has been, and is, stipulated by counsel for both parties, 
that formal notice to Henry Carmichael of the time and place 
of taking the present testimony, is waived. 



• 



-TS'^ 



L 3 

FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



Fkanklin J. Rollins, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by James H. Lange, Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. State your name, age, residence and occupation. 
Ans. Franklin J. Bollins ; 59 years ; Portland ; Insurance 
agent. 

2. Do you know the parties to this Interference ; and if 
yea. how long have you known Mr. Henry Carmichael, and 
what are your relations with him ? 

Ans. I do know the parties. I have known Prof. Car- 
michael since September, 1882. No business relations — only 
friendly ones. 

3. Were you present at the taking of Mr. Carmichael's tes- 
timony in this Interference, which was taken on the 6th and 
14th days of May, inclusive, of this present year? And did 
you understand the nature of the same as to its general pur- 
pose or effect ? 

Ans. I was present a portion of the time. The first day I 
was a witness in Court, in another matter, and was present but 
a few moments. After that time, I was present two-thirds of 
the hours. I think I understood its purpose and effect. 

4. If you know of anything which bears upon or affects 
Mr. Carmichael's claim to the invention in controversy, or 
affects the testimony which he gave in relation to the same, 
will you please state as clearly and briefly as you can, the na- 
ture of such knowledge on your part ? 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael objects to the form of the ques- 
tion as indefinite, and calling upon the witness for testimony 
(the nature of which is not disclosed, so that legal objection can 
be made,) that in the judgment of the witness may affect Mr. 
Carmichael *s claim or the testimony given by him. Counsel re- 
quests that the question may be made more specific, and the 



Z.O-/V9I 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



opinion of the witness as to what legally affects the matter in 
question, may not be substituted for that of counsel.'] 

[ Question withdrawn.] 

5. If you have had any business transactions or relations 
with Mr. Carmichael concerning the affairs of the Fibre Ware 
Company, or the Indurated Fibre Company, state when, under 
what circumstances, and what took place. 

Ans. As Treasurer of the Fibre Ware Company, to which 
office I was elected July 19, 1882, I agreed to the terms of a 
contract or license between Prof. Carmichael and the company, 
dated September 9, 1882. A contract had previously been 
made between Prof. Carmichael and said company, dated July 
1, 1882, which limited the license and privileges to the Fibre 
Ware Company. I asked that the successors and assigns should 
be included in the new contract and license. The first contract 
limited the company to the use of the treatment to articles 
manufactured by the flexible drainer process, then in use by 
the company. I asked that the company, its successors and 
assigns, be authorized to use his indurating process in treating 
pails, manufactured by the process then in use and in contem- 
plation. I asked that the ambiguous language, which related 
to the use of his treatment, by other parties using other pro- 
cesses from which we were to receive a moiety of benefit, be 
made more definite by using the word " hollow-ware," as shown 
in the agreement of September 9th. This business was trans- 
acted in the office of the Hon. Charles F. Libby, and was not 
fully completed for several days after we commenced upon it. 
By the word we in the last sentence but one, I mean the Fibre 
Ware Company. I have had no business transactions with 
Prof. Carmichael as an officer of the Indurated Fibre Company. 

6. State whether or not, in the month of September, 1882, 
you had one or more interviews with Prof. Henry Carmichael, 
at Brunswick, Me. And if yea, relate what took place. 

Ans. I had an interview with Prof. Carmichael, at Bruns- 



FEANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



wick, on the 15th day of September, 1882, at his house, at which 
time and place I received the contracts and licenses before 
mentioned, and an additional contract and license, allowing the 
treatment of toy-yachts by his treatment. He went home from 
the room, in which he first met me, and shortly returned bring- 
ing the contracts and licenses, in or with an envelope which I 
recognized as being from the office of the Hon. Wm. L. Put- 
nam, of Portland, Maine. He made inquiries in regard to the 
success of the company in forming pails, at Waterville, Maine. 
In answer to which, I gave him a general idea of the progress 
made. He then, with my pencil, made rough sketches, illus- 
trating the ideas of Mr. Bodge and his own, in regard to methods 
of forming pulp ware. 

7. Upon what did he make the sketches, and what kind of 
a pencil did you let him have ? 

Ans. He made the sketches upon the envelope mentioned, 
which is now before me, marked " Carmichael Exhibit A, — 0. 
S., Not. Pub., May 6, 1886." The pencil was like that. 

[ Witness introduces a pencil red at one end and blue at the 
other, lohich is marked '•'•Bodge Exhibit No. 1, — A. H. D., Me'r, 
May 28, 1886."] 

8. Prior to the present hearing of this date, when last did 
you see the envelope, Carmichael Exhibit A, with the sketches 
thereon ? 

Ans. On the 7th day of March, a. d. 1884, at Prof. Carmi- 
chael's house in Brunswick — from about 7 P. M. to about 12 
p. M., as I had occasion to look at it. 

9. Prior to your interview with Prof. Carmichael, at Bruns- 
wick, Maine, on September 15, 1882, had you seen a pail, or 
pails, made from wood pulp, or any machine constructed for 
that purpose, at the works of the Fibre Ware Company at 
Waterville, Maine, and if yea, when was it and on what 
machine ? 

Ans. I saw a pail manufactured at the works of the Fibre 



FRANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 



Ware Company, at Waterville, on the 17th day of August, 
1882, by Joseph J. Bodge, in the presence of Hugh J. Chisholm, 
on a machine now before me with a rubber diaphragm therein. 

10. Will you please introduce, as an exhibit, the machine to 
which you refer in your last answer, and upon which the pail 
was formed ? 

Ans. I will and do. This is the machine, marked Bodge 
Exhibit, No. 2,— A. H. D., Ex'r, May 28, 1886. Parts [A,] 
[B,] [C,] [D,] The rubber diaphragm, at that time attached to 
the barrel, Exhibit No. 2, [A], is not now attached, nor is there 
a rubber diaphragm now in the exhibit. The other parts are, 
according to my best knowledge and belief, substantially the 
same as when I saw the pail formed. 

11. What was the condition of the pail which you saw 
formed, as to the completeness of its structure, after having 
been formed by the machine to which you refer ? 

Ans. It was in as good condition as the pails now formed 
at the mills of the Indurated Fibre Company are in, when taken 
from the former, though less compactly formed. 

12. Were you present at the meeting of the Stockholders of 
the Fibre Ware Company, at the office of Hugh J. Chisholm, 
48}£ Exchange Street, Portland, Maine, on September 7, 1883 ? 

Ans. I was. 

13. Will you please state, if you know, the general nature 
and purpose of said meeting? 

[ (Jounsel for Prof. Carmichael wishes the Examiner to note 
that after the question was put and before answered, the witness 
examined, at some length, a booh of records in his hands.~\ 

Ans. The call for the meeting was for the following pur- 
poses : 

1st. To decide if the Company will sell all the property and 
interest, of whatever kind, which they now hold, to a company 
to be formed for the purpose of purchasing the same, with the 



FEANKLIN J. KOLLINS. 



understanding that said new company shall assume all the 
debts and liabilities of the said Fibre Ware Company. 

2d. Should the said Fibre Ware Company decide to so 
sell, then at said meeting, said stockholders shall take such 
steps as may be necessary to accomplish said sale. 

14. To what book of records did you refer, in making your 
last answer ? 

Ans. Records of the Fibre Ware Company. 

15. At said meeting, did any discussion take place among 
the stockholders, as to any invention or inventions of Joseph 
G. Bodge ? 

Ans. There did. 

16. What invention of Joseph G. Bodge was discussed at 
said meeting? 

[Counsel objects to the form of the question as not calling for 
what was said, but ashing the witness to characterize the nature 
of the discussion.^ 

Ans. The invention of the pail machine in controversy. 

17. Will you please state about the size of the room in 
which said meeting was held, and discussion made, as to the 
Bodge pail machine ? 

Ans. The room, as I have since ascertained by actual meas- 
urement, was and is, seventeen feet from front to rear, and six- 
teen feet one inch, from side to side. 

18. Was the room more or less rilled with office furniture? 
And if yea, do you recall, substantially, what pieces were in 
the room ? 

Ans. There were two tables and a desk, each about k% feet 
in length ; a small table with letter-press thereon ; about a 
dozen chairs, and a radiator, which I suppose would be rather 
of the nature of a fixture than furniture — said radiator 3 feet, 
7 inches long. 

19. State, if you know, the number and location of the win- 
dows and doors opening into said room. 



FEANKLIN J. KOLLINS. 



Ans. There were three large windows in front, a door on 
one side, and three doors in rear — one of which I think opens 
outward, but I am not certain. 

20. Can you recall about the number of stockholders pres- 
ent at said meeting ? 

Ans. I think there were fourteen. The records show but 
thirteen. 

21. Was Mr. Henry Carmichael, one of the parties to this 
Interference, present at said meeting, during its regular or busi- 
ness session ? 

Ans. He was. 

22. Were any articles produced at said meeting that were 
made, or said to have been made, on the Bodge Pail Machine, 
then under discussion ? 

Ans. There were. 

23. What were they ? 

Ans. A baby -jumper and several water pails. 

24. State the condition of the pails as to their completeness. 
Ans. They were indurated, hooped and bailed, ready for the 

market — if the company had cared to sell pails at that time. 

[Adjourned here, at 1 p. m., to 2 p. m., same day.] 



[Met pursuant to adjournment, same parties present and at the 

same place.] 

25. What became of the pails to which you have referred — 
I mean the pails that were exhibited at this meeting of Sep- 
tember 7, 1883, and which were completed for the market ; 
also as to what became of the baby-jumper ? 

Ans. They were sent to Boston immediately thereafter, and 
on the 21st day of September, 1883, were taken to the new 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



Adams House, and in a room occupied b\ me exposed to William 
A. Kussell, then a member of Congress for Massachusetts, 
George W. Kussell, Charles B. Gardiner, Charles D. Brown 
and H. J. Chisholm. 

26. Have you a pail, in all respects as to completeness and 
adaptability for use or sale, like the ones that were at the meet- 
ing of September 7, 1883, and which were afterwards taken to 
Boston ; and if yea, will you produce the same ? 

[ Objected to — as calling upon the witness to exercise his judg- 
ment by comparison, as to the qualities of articles not pretended 
were made at the same time or place as the pails, not produced, 
with which they are compared ; and for the further reason that 
this witness is not shown to be, hi any xnay, an expert in this 
matter, .] 

Ans. I have, and I produce it ; except it is minus a hoop at 
the bottom, which has dropped off, and which I will endeavor, 
later in my examination, to produce. 

[ Said pail is introduced, and marked "Bodge Exhibit N~o 3, — 
A. H. D., Ex'r, May 28, 1886."] 

This pail was given me by Mr. Bodge on or about August 
28, 1883, and has ever since been in my possession. 

27. Has the pail, Exhibit No. 3, been in use during the 
period in which it was in your possession ? 

Ans. It has. Most of the time it has been in by bath-room, 
and used to carry water to the several chambers in my house. 

28. What became of the pails, if you know, that were taken 
to the new Adams House, Boston, as referred to by you ? 

Ans. They were ordered to be sent to the office of the Eussell 
Paper Company, 53 Devonshire St., Boston. 

\_Answer objected to — as not responsive and introducing in- 
competent matter.~\ 

29. For what purpose, if you know, were they sent, or 
ordered to be sent, to the office of the Eussell Paper Company, 
Boston ? 



FKANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



Ans. The object in view was the same as the object of first 
sending them to Boston, namely : to see if we could not induce 
certain stockholders of the Fibre Ware Company, and other 
parties, to furnish capital for a new corporation, then con- 
templated. 

30. Who ordered the pails to be sent to the Eussell Paper 
Company, if you know ? 

Ans. A discussion was had, as to what should be done with 
the pails, and George W. Eussell said " send them to our office." 

31. Do you know whether they were sent to said office ? 
Ans. I do not. I think they were ; but I do not know. 

32. Have you any reason to believe that they were sent, as 
ordered, to the office mentioned? 

[Objected to. It already appears that the witness has no 
knowledge that they were so sent. His reasons for supposing 
that such was the case are incompetent^ 

Ans. I have no reason to believe to the contrary. 

33. Where were you when Mr. Bodge gave you the pail 
marked Exhibit No. 3 ? 

Ans. At the Falmouth Hotel, in Portland. 

34. I hand you two photographs which are marked No. 1, 
0. S., Not. Pub.,— No. 2, 0. S., Not. Pub. Will you please state 
whether you ever saw the same, or photographs exactly similar ? 
And if yea, state when and where you first saw them. 

Ans. I have seen like photographs. I first saw them on or 
about September 7, 1883, in Portland. They were handed me 
by Joseph G-. Bodge. To show how well I identify them, I will 
state, that since the examination in this case commenced, Mr. 
Bodge showed me two photographs, both of which showed the 
" former " up in the dome ; and I immediately told him that 
one of the photographs he handed me on or about Sept. 7, 
1883, showed the "former" up in the dome, and the other 
showed the " former " exposed. 
2— P. O. 



10 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

[Latter part of answer objected to as irresponsive and irrele- 
vant.'] 

[Counsel introduces said two photographs marked "Bodge Ex- 
hibits, Nos. 4 and 5, — A. H. D., JEx'r., May 28, 1886," respec- 
tively^ 

35. Will you please state whether or not any photographs 
were produced and exhibited at the meeting of the stockholders 
of the Fibre Ware Company, on Sept. 7, 1883, at the office of 
Hugh J. Chisholm. And if yea, what were they ? 

Ans. There were — photographs that he gave me on or about 
Sept. 7, 1883, the day of the meeting. 

36. Who do you mean by " he" in your last answer ? 
Ans. Joseph G. Bodge. 

37. Had you ever seen the machine represented in the pho- 
tographs — Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 — prior to Sept. 7, 1883, when 
you received said or similar photographs from said Joseph G-. 
Bodge ? 

Ans. I had. 

38. When and where ? 

Ans. At the Fibre Ware Company's mill, in Waterville. I 
cannot now recall the dates. 

39. Did you see the machine operate ? 
Ans. I did not. 

40. Who exhibited it to you, if any one ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge, and I saw it without any exhibition. It 
was all out in plain sight — I mean to officers of the Company. 
I don't know as to anybody else. 

41. What was your business or occupation in 1882 and 
1883? 

Ans. I was Collector of Internal Eevenue for the District 
of Maine, Secretary and Treasurer of the Little Chebeague Is- 
land Company, of Portland, Maine ; Secretary and Treasurer 
of the Arnoux Electric Light and Power Company of Maine ; 
a member of the Executive Committee of the Fibre Ware Com- 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 11 

pany, and Treasurer of said Fibre Ware Company ; senior mem- 
ber of the firm of Eollins & Adams, Insurance Agents ; and 
Secretary and Treasurer of the Deering Land Company. 

42. Does the circumstance of your relations with any of the 
companies you have mentioned, connect itself in your mind 
with the meeting of the stockholders of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, on September 7, 1883; and if so, how? 

[ Objected to — as irrelevant and leading.'] 

Ans. On the sixth of September 1883, my brother, former 
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with his family, came 
to Little Chebegue Island as my guests, to remain over the 7th 
day of September. On the 7th day of September there was a 
meeting of the Directors of the Arnoux Electric Light and 
Power Company held at the the office of William L. Putnam at 
11 o'clock in the forenoon. The meeting of the Fibre Ware 
Company was held at the office of Mr. Chisholm, in the after- 
noon ; and in the evening at 6 o'clock there was another 
meeting of the Directors of the Arnoux Electric Light and 
Power Company of Maine, to conclude an agreement for merg- 
ing said Arnoux Company with the Consolidated Electric Light 
Company, the preliminaries of which had been talked over at 
the meeting at Mr. Putnam's office in the morning. Calls for 
these meetings had been issued before I knew of my brother's 
coming. I was obliged to leave the Island on the early morn- 
ing boat, before he was up, and was mortified that the clerk of 
the hotel should receive money from him as a guest of the 
house. 

43. While in attendance at the meeting of the Fibre Ware 
Company, on the 7th of September, 1883, did you see your 
brother, or any of his family ? and if yea, state the circum- 
stances. 

[ Objected to — same as before.] 

Ans. They came from the Island on the boat, reaching the 
city at about 5 o'clock, and his daughters were driven by the 



12 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

office, and I spoke to them from the window at which I was 
sitting. 

44. From the window of what office did you see your broth- 
er's daughters ? 

Ans. From the window of the office of H. J. Chisholm, 48}£ 
Exchange Street, while the meeting of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany was in progress. 

45. How long after you saw your brother's daughters from 
the window, was it that the meeting closed ? And also state 
at what hour the meeting began. 

Ans. The meeting began at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and 
adjourned shortly after I spoke to my brother's daughters — not 
far from a quarter past five. 

46. At said meeting was the question discussed about the 
purchase of the invention of Mr. Bodge, now in controversy, 
and the application for Letters Patent therefor ? 

[ Objected to — leading, .] 

Ans. It was, fully, by quite a number of the stockholders 
present. 

47. Was anything said as to the terms of the purchase pro- 
posed or contemplated ? 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael objects to the question as lead- 
ing, and to this method of examining the witness as to so called 
discussions and conversations, in which no inquiry is made as 
to what was said, but leading questions as to the effect or result 
of the discussion, are put to the witness, by which he is called 
upon to summarize and construe the language used.'] 

Ans. Colonel Kichards made a summary statement of the 
part he had taken in negotiating with Mr. Bodge's attorney, 
which the other stockholders regarded as outrageous, according 
to the expressions made use of ; but I remember a computation 
made by one member, showing how many baby-jumpers we 
should have to sell to pay the purchase price for the patent. It 
was the price demanded by Bodge that was deemed outrageous, 
and not the part Col. Richards had taken in the negotiation. 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 13 

48. State whether the price was named, and if so, the 
amount. 

Ans. $10,000 in cash and $15,000 in stocks in the Fibre 
Ware Company, — it being stipulated that the stock of said 
company should not exceed $125,000. 

49. Was Mr. Carmichael present when these discussions 
and statements were made, as to the terms you have mentioned ? 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge and belief, he was. 

50. Did Prof. Carmichael, then and there, make any remarks 
concerning the matter ? 

Ans. I do not remember that he did. 

51. State how long a time was consumed at the meeting of 
the stockholders of the Fibre Ware Company on July 19, 1882, 
if you can, and at what time of the day. 

Ans. The meeting was called at 2)4 o'clock in the afternoon, 
and lasted but little time — how long, I cannot say. 

52. Eecurring now to your interview with Mr. Carmichael 
at Brunswick, Maine, on September 15, 1882, will you please 
state what was the condition of the envelope of Carmichael 
Exhibit A, before he began to make sketches thereon in your 
presence. 

Ans. It had upon it the postmark, the direction, and on the 
left hand end a request for its return to P. O. Box 1576, if I 
remember correctly, and by which I recognized it as coming 
from the office of William L. Putnam ; besides which there 
were no other marks, as I remember. 

[ On reading his ansicer deponent wishes to add after figures 
" 1576," the words "Portland, Maine."~\ 

53. In your answer to question 6, in which you refer to 
your interview with Prof. Carmichael on the 15th day of Sep- 
tember, 1882, you say, among other things, as follows : "He 
made inquiries in regard to the success of the company in form- 
ing pails at Waterville, Maine, in answer to which, I gave 
him a general idea of the progress made." Will you please 



14 FKANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

state, specifically, the substance of the information you gave 
him as to the progress made in forming pails, at Waterville ? 

Ans. I informed him they had abandoned the plunger 
method, and described to him, as well as I could, what they 
were doing with the machine, as here exhibited, without the 
plunger. 

[Adjourned here, at 4.45 P. m., to 9.30 a. m., May 29, 1886.] 



[May 29, 1886, met pursuant to adjournment, at the same place, 
same parties present.] 

[Before resuming the examination witness desires to make the 
following correction in his previous testimony, and says :] 

I do not remember my exact language, but in one of my an- 
swers to one of the foregoing interrogatories, I stated that I had 
had no business relations with Prof. Carmichael since the transac- 
tion of March 7, 1884. I will now say, that I subsequently 
fulfilled my part of the agreement, of that date, and that since that 
time, as Treasurer of the Little Chebeague Island Company, I 
employed him to analyze the water of a spring located on said 
Island. 

54. Did you say anything to him with regard to the forma- 
tion of pails, at the works of the Fibre Ware Company, during 
said interview ? And if yea, state what you said. 

Ans. I told him I had seen a pail formed by a machine 
using a rubber diaphragm. 

55. During the conversation, at said interview, was anything 
said relating to the indurating process ? 

Ans. There was. 

56. What? 

Ans. He commenced to read his formula, and when he 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 15 

came to the ^ord " linseed-oil," he said he wished to set him- 
self right with me, in regard to a statement he had made to C. 
D. Brown and H, J. Chisholm, that there was no linseed-oil 
used in the treatment. He would explain said statement, by 
saying that the oil, in boiling contemplated, underwent a chem- 
ical change and was no longer linseed-oil. 

57. In your previous testimony, you have stated that at 
said interview of September 15, 1882, you handed Mr. Carmi- 
chael a red and blue pencil, of the kind like exhibit No. 1. Will 
you please state how you happened to have such pencil with 
you? 

Ans. There has been no time, within eight years, when I 
have not had pencils like the exhibit, on my desk at my office, 
in my house, at home where I live, and most of the time one 
in my pocket. 

58. In what manner did you carry a pencil of the kind like 
exhibit No. 1, about your person ? 

Ans. I uniformly carry a long envelope in my pocket be- 
cause it is thinner and lighter than a pocket-book, and in such 
envelope I carried such pencil, so that, whether long or short, 
there would be no inconvenience. The pencil being sharpened 
at both ends, the points could not come in contact with any 
papers kept in the envelope. 

59. In Mr. Carmichael's deposition, taken in this cause, he 
stated in answer to re-direct question 349, that he applied to 
you, as formerly Treasurer of the Fibre Ware Company, as well 
as to others, for permission to see the records of said company, 
and was informed by you, as well as others, that the where- 
abouts of the book of records was unknown. Will you please 
state what you know about his inquiry to you, and explain 
your answer as to the whereabouts of said book of records ? 

Ans. I told him I did not know where the book of records 
was ; that I was never Secretary of the company ; that the last 
time I remembered to have seen the records, was at the office 



16 FKANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

of Clarence Hale, and if Mr. Stevens the Secretary, did not have 
the book, it might be that it was left at Mr. Hale's office. I 
told him, that, as Treasurer of the company, I had all the 
account books in my possession. 

60. Will you relate, if you know, the circumstances attend- 
ing the finding of the book of records ? 

Ans. Some little time after Mr. Carmichael came to my of- 
fice, I went to see Mr. Stevens, the Secretary, and asked him 
where I could find the records. He replied that he had long 
before left them at my office. Subsequently, Mr. Denison, 
Treasurer of the Indurated Fibre Company, came into my office, 
and I made search for the book of records and found it, with 
other books, a few inches from the bottom of the safe. All the 
account books of the company had canvas coverings. As this 
did not have, I had never regarded it as a book of the company, 
if I had seen it. I did not know it was in my office, and, as I 
supposed, gave a true answer to Prof. Carmichael, when he 
asked for it. 

[Direct Examination closed 



Cross-Examination hy Charles F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Prof. Carmichael. 

X 61. Eeferring to your answer to the 5th interrogatory, 
where you mention an agreement between Prof. Carmichael 
and the Fibre Ware Company, bearing date Sept. 9, 1882, please 
state where said agreement was executed, and on what date, 
and who the attesting witness was, and whether the same was 
executed in duplicate. 

Ans. It was excuted at the office of Charles F. Libby, in 
Merchants Bank Building, Exchange Street, Portland. It was, 
I think, witnessed by some clerk and student of Mr. Libby's. 



FEANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 17 



I do not remember whether or not it was executed in duplicate. 
It was dated Sept. 9, 1882. 

X 62. How recently have you seen the original of that 
agreement, in the possession of your company? 

Ans. Since the commencement of these proceedings, and I 
think I last saw it a week ago yesterday, but not to read it 
carefully — simply to take the date, and look at the term " hol- 
low-ware." 

X 63. Is your recollection full and exact, as to the circum- 
stances attending the execution of that contract, and its terms ? 

Ans. I do not suppose I recollect all the particulars. 

X 64. Are you able to state the day on which it was exe- 
cuted ? 

Ans. It might have been executed on the 14th of Septem- 
ber, 1882, on which date I gave Charles F. Libby, attorney for 
Prof. Carmichael, my personal check for $1,394.51 in full for 
Prof. Carmichael's bill against the Fibre Ware Company. 

X 65. Is a reference to the date of that check the only 
means you have of fixing, approximately or exactly, the day 
when that agreement was executed ? 

Ans. I think there were several days consumed in complet- 
ing the settlement, and arranging terms of new contract and 
license, and my memory, unaided, helps me to determine the 
date approximately or certainly. 

X 66. Will you state whether or not, early in August, 1882, 
you had interviews with me, as attorney for Prof. Carmichael, in 
the enforcement of his claim against the Fibre Ware Company, 
with reference to its adjustment, which continued through that 
month and resulted in the giving of the check mentioned, and 
the execution of the agreement of September 9, 1882. 

Ans. It is quite possible, and indeed probable, that in 

August, 1882, I first met Prof. Carmichael, and the negotiations 

resulting in the settlement of this account commenced. I 

remember, distinctly, that when I went to Waterville on a 

3— P.O. 



18 ERANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



special train, tendered me by the officers of the Maine Central 
Railroad, on the 24th day of June — if I remember accurately — 
on board which were the President of the road, Paysou Tucker, 
its General Manager, Arthur Sewall, Darius Alden and Theodore 
N. Vail and others; there was a talk of purchasing $25,000 
worth of the stock of the Fibre Ware Company ; that when the 
amount of stock outstanding was ascertained, such members of 
the party present as intended to take stock in said company, 
insisted upon a reduction, in some manner, of at least twenty -five 
per cent, of said stock. Mr. Vail declined to decide as to 
whether or not he and his friends would take any of the stock, 
until his attorney should examine the patents. On looking up 
the Letters Patent to send to him, shortly subsequent, it was 
ascertained, and for the first time made known to me, that the 
Fibre Ware Company did not own, by assignment from Prof. 
Carmichael, the indurating process invented by him, but not 
then patented. On calling for a license and formula, I did not 
find either, although an agreement had been entered into, as I 
understood. It was in Mr. Libby's office, according to my best 
knowledge and belief, that I first saw the contract and license 
of July 1, 1882, and insisted on enlarged provisions. I had, 
prior to that time, at the urgent solicitation of Mr. Chisholm, 
and before any of my associates had contributed a dollar of 
money, paid some $1,500 of the Fibre Ware Company's debt, 
to save its paper from protest. I then went to Mr. Chisholm 
and said to him, that I would not ask my friends to put a dol- 
lar of money into the enterprise, unless he and other original 
members of the Fibre Ware Company should surrender stock to 
pay for the enlargement or broadening of the Carmichael license 
and contract. He said if he contributed seventy-five shares of 
it, seventy-five other shares must be contributed by Grenville 
M. Stevens, who, I think, was one of the patentees. I finally 
secured from each a surrender of seventy-five shares, which was 
subseqently made over to Prof. Carmichael. Considerable time 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



19 



was taken to secure the result named, and it now seems that I 
must have commenced negotiations in the month of August, 
1882. 

X 67. When did you first become interested in the Fibre 
Ware Company, as a stockholder ? 

Ans. I was chosen Treasurer of the company July 19, 1882, 
and was elected Director July 28, 1882, at which date one or 
more shares of stock was given me to enable me to become a 
Director. 

X 68. Will you produce the original agreement of Sept. 9, 
1882, referred to in your examination, and make it a part of 
this testimony ? 

Ans. If I can be excused to go and find it. 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael expresses a willingness that 
witness be excused for that purpose.'] 

[ Witness goes out, and on his return says he finds the office of 
the Indurated Fibre Company closed, and he is therefore un- 
able to procure said original contract, but will do so later.] 

X 69. What was the " flexible drainer process " used by 
the Fibre Ware Company, as referred to in your answer to the 
5th interrogatory ? 

Aois. It was a process we were then using in the formation 
of basins. 

X 70. Was it a process in which a plunger was used for 
forming the articles for pulp ? 

Ans. It was the process patented by Grenville M. Stevens, 
of Deering, and Hugh J. Chisholm, of Portland, Maine, August 
30, 1881, and numbered No. 246,569. 

X 71. From what book were you reading in giving your 
last answer ? And will you please state whether a plunger 
was used in that machine patented by Chisholm and Stevens. 

Ans. It is a book owned by the Indurated Fibre Company, 
containing the specifications and sketches illustrating the 
method of forming hollow-ware by means of a male and female 



20 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

die in connection with a flexible drainer. I cannot say whether 
this would be termed a plunger. The male die was forced 
into the female die, and between them a basin is formed. Both 
male and female dies are perforated. 

X 72. Are the specifications and drawings, referred to in 
your last answer, printed copies from the patent office of the 
Ohisholm and Stevens patent before mentioned ? 

Ans. They are, as I have every reason to believe. 

X 73. Did the agreement of Sept. 9, 1882, between Prof. 
Carmichael and the Fibre Ware Company, enlarge the rights of 
the Fibre Ware Company, to use Prof. Carmichael's Indurating 
Process, so as to include articles made by them by any other 
process than the flexible drainer process ? 

[Objected to, as calling for the contents of an instrument in 
writing, and the legal construction thereof by the witness, and 
not the best evidence.] 

Ans. It did not, in my opinion — although I tried to have 
it include other processes ; and if I had succeeded, I should never 
have made the agreement between Prof. Carmichael and my- 
sel, dated March 7, 1884, heretofore alluded to. 

X 74. By the agreement of March 7, 1884, do you mean 
the agreement which constitutes Carmichael Exhibit D, hereto- 
fore introduced ? 

Ans. I do. 

X 75. Are the pails made under the Bodge patent, here in 
question, made by a different process than the " flexible drainer 
process " ? 

[Objected to — as calling for expert testimony, and as referring 
to matters not brought out in the direct examination and as im- 
material to the issue involved."] 

Ans. They are. 

X 76. By what means do you identify Carmichael Exhibit 
A as the envelope that you say in your previous testimony, 
Prof. Carmichael made drawings upon, " illustrating the ideas of 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. ' 21 

Mr. Bodge and his own in regard to methods of forming pulp 
ware," on the 15th day of Sept., 1882, at his house in Bruns- 
wick, with a pencil furnished by you ? 

Ans. By the post-mark of June 22, 1882 ; by the return 
notice on the end of the envelope, which I did not — no — 
expect to find, as on first examination I did not discover — the 
end of the envelope having been worn or torn off. Had I not 
discovered a portion of the return notice, I should not have 
sworn that it was the same envelope. The foregoing portion of 
this answer is unsatisfactory, and to make it more clear I now 
say that I recognize it by the post-mark ; the return notice, or 
a portion thereof, on the extreme end of the envelope, and the 
red and blue pencil marks. Had the return notice on the end 
of the envelope been entirely obliterated, T should have quali- 
fied my statement. 

X 77. What do you mean by the words " first examination." 
in your last answer ? 

Ans. First examination since March 7, 1884, namely, yester- 
day morning. 

X 78. Was that just before you commenced to give your 
testimony ? 

Ans. It was a few minutes before. 

X 79. Where did you get the No. 1576, as Mr. W. L. Put- 
nam's P. 0. number, as previously testified to ? 

Ans. I have had very much business to do with Mr. Put- 
nam since my appointment as assignee in bankruptcy of the 
Bank of Portland. T had to do with him in the purchase of 
property of the Presumpscot Pulp Ware Company, now owned 
by the Indurated Fibre Company, and more recently as my 
attorney in some large real estate transactions. Two envelopes 
recently received from him are now in my possession, and I 
here show them. 

[Said envelopes are introduced, marked: "Bodge JEJxhibits 
Nos. 6 and 7, — A. H. I)., E£r., May 29, 1886," respectively^ 



22 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

I remember the box number as being 200 less than 1776, the 
year of our national independence. I remember my own house 
number, 693 Congress St., as being 700 less 7, and so tell any 
person who should inquire the number of my residence ; and it 
is my usual custom to remember by such methods. 

[Adjourned here, at 1:10 P. M., to 2:15 p. m., same day.] 



[Met pursuant to adjournment, at same place and same parties 

present.] 

[Agreement of Sept. 9, 1882, here introduced and marked : 
"Bodge Exhibit No. 8,— A. H. JD., Ex'r., May 29, 1886."] 

[It is stipulated that a copy of said agreement, certified by the 
Examiner, shall be used in place of the original.'] 

X 80. In your answer to Int. 76, you say, " Had I not dis- 
covered a portion of the return notice, I should not have sworn 
that it was the same envelope." What portion of the return 
notice found upon the envelope, marked " Carmichael Exhibit 
A," at the time of your examination of the envelope yesterday 
morning, enables you to swear that it was the same envelope 
which you say Prof. Carmichael made drawings upon, on the 
15th day of September, 1882, in your presence ? 

Ans. To all appearances, when I first examined the envelope 
it was, until addressed and the post-mark put upon it, a plain 
envelope; and I did not discover any indication of the return 
notice, or any portion of it, until I had seen it a second time 
yesterday, and then I first discovered such portion of the return 
notice as was not worn away or torn off. 

X 81. What portion of the return notice did you discover, 
on your second examination yesterday, of Carmichael Exhibit 
A? 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 23 



Ans. I discovered whatever there was upon it — without a 
very careful examination — enough to satisfy me that it was not 
a blank envelope, and that it bore ear-marks of the return 
notice in use on envelopes of Mr. Putnam. 

X 82. Can you now tell me, after your two examinations 
which you state that you made yesterday of this exhibit, what 
words, or parts of words, were then upon the envelope, Exhibit 
A, forming a part of the return notice ? 

Ans. In my statement made yesterday, I said, if I remem- 
ber rightly, " Keturn to P. 0. Box 1576, Portland, Maine," 
and the address and the postal mark were all there was upon 
the envelope, at the time I first saw it that day. I did not 
mean to be understood by that, that the return notice was lim- 
ited to those words only ; nor did I wish to be understood as 
saying, that there was no postage stamp or stamps upon it. It 
was a part of the whole return notice that appeared upon the 
envelope, and I dare say it is the part I omitted to give, namely : 
" If not called for in six days." 

X 83. Will you now kindly answer Int. 82, and which I 
will now ask the Examiner to repeat ? 

[Question 82 repeated.'] 

Ans. I cannot any more definitely than I have. 

X 84. What words in the return notice found upon Exhibit 
A, at your examination yesterday, then first discovered by you, 
enabled you to swear to the identity of this envelope, which, as 
stated by you in your answer to Int. 76, if you had not discov- 
ered, you " should not have sworn that it was the same en- 
velope " ? 

Ans. A comparison of the words still remaining on the 
envelope, Carmichael Exhibit, marked A, with the words of an 
envelope, then in my hands, containing the full return notice. 

X 85. How many such words were then remaining upon 
Exhibit A, forming a part of the return notice ? 



24 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

Ans. I do not now recall — there were not less than six or 
eight. 

X 86. Was the number of any post office box on Exhibit 
A at the time of your examination of it yesterday, as forming a 
part of any return notice which you then saw upon it ? 

Ans. I cannot say. 

X 87. After your careful examination of this Exhibit A 
yesterday, can you not now, twenty-four hours thereafter, state 
whether or not you then saw on said exhibit, the number of 
the P. O. box, by which in your answer to Int. 52 you say, 
that at the time therein referred to, you recognized it " as com- 
ing from the office of William L. Putnam," adding, " besides 
which, there were no other marks as I remember." 

Ans. I had before me at the time of the examination, the 
contract between Prof. Carmichael and the Eibre Ware Com- 
pany, dated July 1, 1882, which I recognized as in the hand- 
writing of Daniel Brooks — for ten or more years last past a 
clerk in the office of Hon. Wm. L. Putnam. The envelope was 
directed in a different handwriting, and to all appearances then 
presented, was blank at the left hand end, so far as any printing 
was concerned. At my examination, Mr. Brooks was present 
in the room, and he, in my presence, turned back a portion of 
the left hand end of the envelope, and thereby disclosed such 
printed words and figures as compared with like words or fig- 
ures on another envelope which I then held in my hand — being 
the printed words on Exhibit No. 6 or 7. 

X 88. When did the examination take place, referred to in 
your last answer? 

Ans. Either just before, or immediately after the com- 
mencement of the preliminaries of my deposition, yesterday 
morning. 

X 89. Will the Examiner please repeat interrogatory 87, 
and ask the witness if he has any further answer to make ? 

[ Question 87 repeated.'] 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 25 

Ans. When I first saw the envelope Exhibit A, at Prof. 
Carmichael's house in Brunswick, September 15, 1882, I know 
there was a return notice on the left hand end of the envelope. 
I know that when it was shown to me again, at his house, in 
Brunswick, on the 7th of March, 1884, there was a return 
notice on the left hand end of the envelope. I know that when 
I first examined the envelope yesterday morning, I failed to 
discover any such return notice ; and I could not have sworn 
positively that it was the same envelope, and bore the same 
post-mark. I know that when Mr. Brooks turned back a folded 
portion of the left hand end of the envelope to satisfy me so 
that I could swear positively that it was the envelope which I 
had seen on the two former occasions mentioned. And I here 
and now swear positively that it is the same envelope I saw on 
the occasions mentioned. 

X 90. At the time of your examination yesterday morning, 
when, as you say in your last answer, Mr. Brooks turned back 
a folded portion of the left hand end of the envelope, to satisfy 
you, so that you could swear positively that it was the envelope 
which you had seen on the two former occasions mentioned. 
I ask you to state whether at that time yesterday you found 
on Exhibit A, any box number forming a part of the return 
notice on said exhibit ? 

Ans. I cannot — the whole combination, post-mark, such 
portion of the return notice as was disclosed to me, and the 
sketches made with blue and red pencil, satisfied me beyond a 
reasonable doubt, that it was the envelope I had seen at Prof. 
Carmichael's house Sept. 15, 1882, and March 7, 1884 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael moves that all after the words 
" I cannot,' 1 '' in the above answer, be stricken out from the record 
as irresponsive, not called for by the question addressed to the 
witness.'} 

X 91. On the 15th day of September, 1882, when you say 
that an envelope was produced by Prof. Carmichael, at his 
4— P. o. 



26 FEANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

house, in Brunswick, on which he made as you say, rough 
sketches, what was there in the circumstances then existing, to 
lead you to make any special examination of an envelope thus 
casually introduced, and which, so far as circumstances then in- 
dicated, could be of no possible importance in the future ? 

Arts. I associated the envelope with the contract and li- 
cense, dated July 1, 1882, between Prof. Carmichael and the 
Fibre Ware Company. I associated the drawings with what 
Mr. Bodge was then doing at the mill of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, at Waterville ; and the fact of Prof. Carmichael's ex- 
planation of his statement that there was no linseed oil used 
in his treatment process, led me to be unusually observing. 

X 92. What papers were contained in the envelope above 
mentioned, at the time Prof. Carmichael produced it, as you 
say, at his house, in Brunswick, Sept. 15, 1882 ? 

Ans. I said in or with papers. The papers, as I now re- 
member, were his formula for treating, which he read aloud, 
and when he came to the word " linseed oil " hesitated and 
made the explanation before mentioned ; his supplemental con- 
tract, dated Sept. 15, 1882, and the contract and license of 
July 1, 1882, and Sept. 9, 1882. 

X 93. Were all those papers contained in that envelope at 
that time ? 

Ans. I do not remember that any of them were in the 
envelope. 

X 94. Was the envelope whole at that time ? 

Ans. It was not much mutilated — it had been opened — 
nothing like what it was when I say it yesterday. 

X 95. In what way had that envelope been opened, as you 
saw it September 15, 1882 ? 

Ans. I did not know — nor do I now know. 

X 96. If it had formerly been a sealed envelope, passing 
through the mail as you have described, would it not bear 
marks of having been opened by tearing, either on one of the 



FEANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 27 



ends or in some other part ; and if so, have you any recollec- 
tion of the appearance of that envelope, with reference to the 
way it had been opened, at the time you say you saw it, Sep- 
tember 15, 1882 ? 

Ans. From my limited experience in the way of opening 
envelopes, some are unsealed with very little mutilation and 
some with a good deal. The care used in opening has much to 
do with the character of the envelope when opened. There 
was nothing remarkable calling my attention to the manner of 
opening. 

X 97. Have you any recollection as to the condition of 
that envelope at that time, with reference to how much, if any 
of it, was destroyed in the opening of it ? 

Ans. There was very little of it destroyed. It was in good 
average condition. 

X 98. What part, if any of it, was destroyed ? 

Ans. I cannot answer. 

X 99. Do you remember whether it was still sealed on the 
back? 

Ans. It is my impression that it was sealed on the back 
and had been opened on the left hand end ; but I am not 
certain. 

X 100. As a matter of fact, when you examined Exhibit 
A yesterday, on the two different occasions mentioned by you, 
did you not find that a portion of the left upper corner of said 
envelope was wanting, and that that portion of the return 
notice containing the number of the box, if any ever existed 
thereon, was wanting ? 

Ans. I noticed it was considerably mutilated and at first 
thought it was a blank envelope at that end, and so continued 
to think until Mr. Brooks folded back a portion that was 
turned over, and disclosed enough of the printing for me to rec- 
ognize the envelope that I had seen in September, '82, and 
March, '84 



28 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

X 101. Were you present at Prof. Carmichael's examination, 
when he stated that he believed Exhibit A, was an envelope 
that he had received from W. L. Putnam's office, the date of its 
post-mark, June 22, 1882, or had you, previous to giving your 
testimony, learned in any way, either by reading his testimony 
or from the statements of others who had been present at the 
examination, that he had so stated ? 

Ans. I was not present, when he testified to that effect, nor 
do I remember to have heard that he so stated. I had heard 
that the sketches were on a plain buff envelope, and I had said, 
in the presence of counsel for Bodge, and other parties, that if 
such were the fact, it was not the envelope which I saw on the 
15th day of September, 1882, and again on March 7th, 1884. 

X 102. When did you first sae Exhibit A, since the taking 
of the testimony in this case first commenced ? 

Ans. Yesterday morning at about 9:30 o'clock. 

X 103. Have you not been present during most of the 
time that the testimony of Prof. Carmichael was taken, from 
May 6, to the 14th, inclusive, and while said exhibit was open 
for examination on the table where the Examiner sat, during 
the greater part of that time ? 

Ans. I was present a very little of the first day. I was a 
witness in the State Court, presided over by Judge Bonney, 
from the opening of the Court until its adjournment for the 
day. I then went into the office of Symonds & Libby, where 
the examination was in progress, but did not go near the table 
where the exhibits lay, if any lay there, nor did I on that day, 
or any subsequent day, until yesterday morning, at about the 
hour of half past nine, see said envelope sufficiently to distin- 
guish it from any other envelope if I saw it at all. I could not 
see the writing, or anything on it, without my glasses, and I 
wore them but very little during the examination. 

[Adjourned here, at 5 P. M., to Monday, May 31, 1886, 9:30 A. M.] 



FRA.NKLIN J. ROLLINS. 29 

[Met pursuant to adjournment, at same place, the same parties 

present] 

Before proceeding with the examination, witness says as fol- 
lows: 

That since the adjournment of this hearing on Saturday 
afternoon last, I have given a good deal of thought to inter- 
rogatory 6, in my direct examination, and to my answer thereto, 
and I am convinced that it was in part erroneous. I had on 
the 14th of September, 1882, given to Charles F. Libby, attorney 
for Prof. Carmichael, my personal check for $1,394.51, and Mr. 
Libby had given to me the contract and license of September 
9, 1882, and perhaps a duplicate copy of it. Whatever papers 
there were, were contained in one of Mr. Libby's office envelopes, 
and into which I have no doubt I had put a pencil, red at one 
end and blue at the other. On my visit to Brunswick on the 
morning of the loth of September, 1882, I went to Prof. Car- 
michael's house and shortly after his coming into the room, I 
took this envelope from my pocket and took the contents from 
the envelope. I was not the bearer of any letter from Mr. 
Libby to Prof. Carmichael, but I told Prof. Carmichael that I 
had made settlement of his claim against the company. He 
said he was aware of the fact, as he had received a communica- 
tion from Mr. Libby upon the subject at 8 o'clock. I remarked 
that he was an early riser, and he replied that it was 8 o'clock 
last evening. The envelope containing such papers as I carried, 
had a return notice on the end, requesting return to Charles F. 
Libby. The other envelope upon which the sketches were 
made, and which Prof. Carmichael had brought into the room, 
or shortly after brought into the room, was the Putnam envelope, 
the return notice on which gave the P. 0. box number. It was 
the comparison of the return notice that enables me to remem- 
ber that there was a return notice on the envelope on which 
Prof. Carmichael made the blue and red sketches. It was after 
he had read his formula to me, and made sketches and conversa- 



30 FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 

tion had taken place in relation to what we were doing at 
Waterville, that he made the brief contract relating to toy- 
yachts. This brief contract was not made in the room in which 
we were sitting, but he went into an adjoining room, a room 
connecting by an entry, and afterward returned, bringing the « 
short contract with him. We did not, during the interview, 
open any contract of July 1, 1882, or September 9, 1882. 

X 104. In view of the important modification you have 
made — after having given, as you say, " a good deal of thought" 
to the matter — in your testimony, now admitted to have been 
erroneous, relating to matters happening nearly four years ago, 
will you state whether, after an opportunity of thirty-six hours 
or more, for reflection, you are able to state what you saw on 
Exhibit A, on Friday morning last, after two separate examina- 
tions of the same ; and to make the matter more specific, I will 
ask you whether at the time of your examination of Exhibit A, 
on Friday last, you found either any P. 0. Box number, or any 
word showing the city or town to which that envelope was to 
be returned? 

Ans. I have had thirty-six hours time for reflection, but I 
have not reflected on that subject ; and I can say no more now 
than I said on Saturday last. 

X 105. How many printed words, or parts of words, of any 
return notice on Exhibit A, can you swear that you saw on 
said exhibit, at the time of your two examinations of the same, 
which you made on Friday last, when you instituted, as you 
say, a comparison of some portion of the return notice of that 
exhibit, with a return notice of some other envelope in your 
possession ? 

Ans. On the first examination, I failed to discover any 
word, or words. At a subsequent examination, Mr. Brooks, 
clerk for Wm. L. Putnam, came into the room, turned back 
some portion of the envelope, and disclosed to me some written 
word, which on comparison I found to be identical with some of 



FEANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 31 

those on an envelope which I held in my hand. On hearing 
the above answer read I wish to correct it by saying, printed 
word or words. 

X 106. How many such printed words on Exhibit A, can 
you swear that you had for comparison ? 

Arts. This disclosure was very hurriedly made ; I cannot say 
positively how many there were, but it is my firm conviction 
there were at least five or six. 

X 107. If you have a firm conviction that there were at 
least five or six, will you please state what five or six words of 
the return notice you saw upon said exhibit ? 

Ans. I cannot state. 

X 108. Are you able, since the production of the original 
agreement of September 9, 1882, to change, in any way, your 
testimony, as to who was the attesting witness to the execution 
of that document, and the day on which it was executed ? 

Ans. I am. Charles F. Libby was the attesting witness, 
and the only one. I do not remember that the date was differ- 
ent from what I gave — September 19, 1882. I did, however, 
notice that it was not executed by me, or any other person, in 
behalf of the company. 

X 109. Do you or not recall that a duplicate original of 
this agreement of September 9, 1882, was executed by you and 
other directors of the Fibre Ware Company, in my presence, at 
the same time that Prof. Carmichael executed this other dupli- 
cate original of that agreement ? 

Ans. My examination of the instrument was very hurriedly 
made. After dinner I had to go to the office of the Indurated 
Fibre Company for this document, and did not readily succeed 
in finding it. I opened it, looked at the date of its execution 
and brought it here. I noticed that it was not signed by me or 
any other person in behalf of the company. I do not recall 
that a duplicate original of this agreement, of September 9, 



32 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

1882, was executed by me, or any other director of the Fibre 
Ware Company. 

X 110. Is your recollection of events, happening about four 
years ago, sufficiently accurate to enable you to swear whether 
you executed an important agreement, as one of the officers of 
the Fibre Ware Company, relating to matters about which you 
have already testified ? I refer to this agreement of September 
9, 1882. 

Ans. I do not remember. My recollection of that event is 
not sufficiently accurate. 

X 111. Will you please examine paper produced by me, 
purporting to be a duplicate original of this agreement of Sep- 
tember 9, 1882, signed by the Directors and Treasurer of the 
Fibre Ware Company, in my presence as attesting witness, and 
state whether the signature of Franklin J. Eollins, appended 
thereto as one of the Directors, is your genuine signature, and 
whether it enables you now to testify with more accuracy as to 
the events attending its execution, inquired of above in X Int. 
110. 

Ans. The signatures are all genuine. There is one thing 
in this connection that is a surprise to me, which is, that Hugh 
J. Chisholm signed as Treasurer; but it is his signature. I do 
not recall any circumstances attending its execution. 

X 112. From whom did you receive the agreement of Sep- 
tember 9, 1882, executed by Prof. Carmichael ? 

Ans. From Charles F. Libby. 

X 113. How long after that date, September 9, 1882, was 
that document delivered ? 

Ans. On the 14th day of September, 1882. 

X 114. Have you, or not, previously testified, that you re- 
ceived it from Prof. Carmichael, on the 15th day of September, 
1882, at his house ? 

Ans. I have, and have corrected said statement. 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 33 

X 115. Are you now positive that you received that docu- 
ment from me, on the 14th day of September, 1882 ? 

Ans. According to the best of my recollection and belief, I 
received it from you, on the 14th day of September, 1882. 

X 116. How clear and positive is that recollection? 

Ans. I know not how to make a comparison to show how 
clear and positive my recollec tion is. I have no reasonable 
doubt that it was delivered to me by you on the day designated. 

X 117. Do you recall whether, prior to the delivery of this 
agreement, certain endorsements were to be made on certain 
certificates* of stock, showing the same to be fully paid up 
stock, in the hands of Prof. Carmichael ; and that delay in the 
passing of these agreements in duplicate was occasioned by rea- 
son of delay in making those endorsements ? I refer to endorse- 
ments upon original certificates of stock held by Prof. Carmi- 
chael. 

Ans. I do not, nor do I remember that the agreement, or 
agreements, had been executed by Prof. Carmichael, or any 
other party, at the time you handed the papers to me. 

X 118. Do you mean by that, that the paper had not been 
signed by Prof. Carmichael, when delivered by me to you, when- 
ever that was ? 

Ans. I mean by that, that I do not remember that it had 
been signed, or had not been signed. 

X 119. Calling your attention to the original document, 
which you have produced, marked Exhibit No. 8, which pur- 
ports to have been signed by Prof. Carmichael, in my pres- 
ence as attesting witness, on the 9th day of September, 1882, 
do you wish to be understood as putting in question the fact of 
such execution on that day ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 120. Then, if that paper was delivered to you by me, on 
a day subsequent to September 9, 1882, as you state, what do 
you mean by your answer to Int. 118 ? 
5— P.O. 



34 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

Ans. I can conceive of an agreement dated at its com- 
mencement, with the expectation that it would be executed on 
that day, being witnessed on a subsequent day, quite as easily 
as I can conceive of Hugh J. Chisholm's signing as Treasurer, 
when he had not been Treasurer for about 50 days next imme- 
diately preceding. 

X 121. Do you not wish to change your testimony, as given 
in answer to Int. 108, as to the day on which that agreement 
was executed ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 122. Will you please examine original document, Ex- 
hibit No. 8, and look at the word " ninth " in the first line of 
the agreement, forming a part of the line : " This agreement 
made this ninth day of September," and state whether or not 
the word "ninth" is written in a different shade of ink, as in- 
dicating that that word was not inserted at the time when the 
instrument was drawn up ? 

Ans. I cannot discover any difference in the shade of the 
ink. 

X 123. By that, do you mean that the word " ninth " looks 
uniform in shade and color with the rest of the line ? 

Ans. I mean that to my eyes, the word "ninth" looks uni- 
form in shade and color with the rest of the line. 

X 124. Is your eye-sight good ? 

Ans. Years have dimmed it some. With the glasses I now 
wear, I cannot, perhaps, see as well as in my earlier days. In 
fact, I know I cannot. I can distinguish shades and color, and 
have always been able to. 

[ Counsel for Prof ! Carmichael requests that the original doc- 
ument, constituting "Bodge Exhibit, JVb. 8," should be made a 
part of the deposition, so that it may be inspected by the officers 
of the Patent Office.'] 

X 125. Do you remember anything relating to any endorse- 
ments to be made upon certificates of stock, held by Prof. Car- 



FRANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 35 

michael, in connection with the execution or delivery of this 
agreement of Sept. 9, 1882 ? 

Ans. I do not remember anything definite in regard to it. 
I know that all the stock that had been issued for patents was 
stamped with a hand stamp upon the certificates, and that the 
vote of the Directors, or agreement with the officers of the 
company, provided that Prof. Carmichael's stock, given by the 
company, should be fully paid stock. I remember further that 
the stock contributed by Messrs. Chisholm and Stevens was by 
them surrendered to the company, and that the stock thus sur- 
rendered, was stamped with the stamp showing that it was 
fully paid. 

X 126. Had certificates of the " 450 shares of the capital 
stock of the said Fibre Ware Company, free from assessments," 
mentioned in Exhibit No. 8, as the consideration of Prof. Car- 
michael's entering into that agreement, been delivered to him, 
endorsed as free from assessment, on the loth day of September, 
1882? 

Ans. I cannot say that it had. I think 300 shares had 
been delivered him, and the 150 shares had not been delivered 
him, but I cannot say whether it had been stamped with the 
rubber stamp, showing that it was fully paid stock. The agree- 
ment between the company and Prof. Carmichael, dated July 1, 
1882, required that it should be full paid stock, and the records 
show that the President and Directors had so agreed. The 150 
shares.to be contributed by Messrs. Chisholm and Stevens, had not 
been made over to him, but their stock was given them for machin- 
ery and patents, and was all duly stamped with the rubber stamp 
before mentioned ; and I had assurance that it would be sur- 
rendered by said Chisholm and Stevens, and of course the party 
to whom it was assigned would be protected as fully as said 
Chisholm and Stevens. The contract of July 1, 1882, now 
before me, has an endorsement on the back thereof reading as 



36 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 



follows : " Eec'd three hundred shares of the Fibre Ware, as 
per within contract; Henry Carmichael, July 13, 1882." 

X 127. Will you examine the original book of certificate 
of stock of the Fibre Ware Company, now before you, and 
state to me the date of the transfer to Prof. Carmichael, by the 
Fibre Ware Company, of the stock of Messrs. Chisholm & 
Stevens, as stated in your last answer, forming a part of the 
450 shares which constituted the consideration of the agree- 
ment of Sept. 9, 1882. 

Ans. One certificate is dated September 28, 1882, and the 
other, September 30, 1882. 

X 128. Will you read the memorandum contained on the 
stubs of said certificates, as found in that original book ? 

Ans. No. 134. 75 shares. Date, September 28, 1882. 
Issued to Henry Carmichael, of Brunswick, Me. Received the 
above described certificate, F. J. Eollins, given to C. F, Libby, 
Sept. 29, 1882. 

No. 135. 75 shares. Dated September 30, 1882. Issued 
to Henry Carmichael, of Brunswick, Me. Eeceived the above 
described certificate. F. J. Rollins dlv. same day to 0. F. Libby. 

X 129. In whose handwriting are the written words : " F. 
J. Rollins given to C. F. Libby, September 29, 1882," on stub of 
certificate 134 ; and the words : " F. J. Rollins dlv. same day 
to C. F. Libby," found on stub of certificate 135 ? 

Ans. They are in my handwriting. 

X 130. Refreshing your recollection from the memoranda 
made by you on the stubs of these certificates, as to the time 
when they were delivered to me, as attorney for Prof. Carmi- 
chael, are you now able to state whether or not the original 
agreement of September 9, 1882, executed by Prof. Carmichael — 
being exhibit No. 8, had been delivered by me, or by Prof. Car- 
michael, to you, or to the Fibre Ware Company, on or prior to 
the 15th day of September, 1882 ? 

Ans. I cannot. It is possible that I am mistaken in my 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 37 

recollection, and it is also possible that the agreements I carried 
to Brunswick, were the agreements of July 1, 1882. 

X 131. Do you wish, in view of the facts to which I have 
called your attention, to change again your testimony as to the 
time when the original agreement of September 9, 1882, form- 
ing Exhibit No. 8, was delivered to you, (as you state, in your 
corrected testimony, at the commencement of this session) by 
me on the 14th day of September, 1882, after, as you stated, in 
making the correction, you had given a good deal of thought to 
the matter since the adjournment on Saturday last? 

Ans. I do not, at this stage of the examination, as the 
adjournment of this hearing within ten minutes now seems 
probable. While I have given a good deal of thought to this 
matter, since the adjournment of Saturday afternoon last, I had 
not consulted any memoranda or books of record bearing upon 
the subject, until the examination of these stubs of certificates, 
just now called to my attention. I will, however, between now 
and the time to which this hearing shall be adjourned, make 
such examination as will enable me to determine whether or 
not I wish to change my evidence. 

X 132. Are you still willing to swear that I, as attorney 
for Prof. Carmichael, delivered to you on the 14th day of Sep- 
tember, 1882, the agreement of September 9, 1882, forming 
Exhibit No. 8, before I, as such attorney, had received the cer- 
tificates of stock, which constituted the consideration of that 
agreement ? 

Ans. I am not willing to swear with the same degree of 
confidence — neither am I yet willing to admit that such was 
not the fact. 

[Adjourned here at 12:45 p. m., to 9:30 A. M., June 1, 1886.] 



38 ERANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

[June 1, 1866, met pursuant to adjournment, same parties pres- 
ent, at same place.] 

X 133. In your answer to Int. 131, you stated that you 
were not then prepared to answer the interrogatory, but that 
you would, during the adjournment, make such examination as 
would enable you to state whether you wished to change your 
testimony. If you now desire to make such change, at the 
commencement of this session, I offer you the opportunity. 

Ans. I do not wish to change my evidence. I have made 
an examination of the Stock-Book and Letter-Book of the Fibre 
Ware Company, and find that on the 11th day of July, 1882, 
Grenville M. Stevens delivered to me, as trustee, certificate No. 
71, for 75 shares of the capital stock of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany. Under an arrangement heretofore mentioned in my evi- 
dence, whereby each stockholder was to surrender 25 per cent, 
of his stock, this certificate was surrendered, and certificate No. 
120 was made out in my name, as trustee, for 63 shares 

and certificate No. 121 also in my name as trustee for 12 " 

making total, 75 " 

These last named certificates were dated August 23, 1882, 
and were signed by Hugh J. Chisholm, Treasurer, notwithstand- 
ing the fact that he had resigned the treasuryship July 19, 
1882, and I had been chosen his successor. On or about this 
same date of August 28, 1882, Mr. Stevens paid me whatever 
if anything he was owing me, and he had therefore become en- 
titled to this stock. Instead of taking it, however, he left it in 
my hands, as trustee, for Prof. Carmichael, and I could have 
turned it over to him any time thereafter, one day as well as 
another. In his surrender of 25 per cent, of his stock, he had 
included his 75 shares standing in my name, as trustee, repre- 
sented by certificate No. 71 ; so there was no necessity of divid- 
ing the certificate, but it was done in manner above stated. 

On this same 11th day of July, 1882, Hugh J. Chisholm 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 39 

held certificates for a large number of shares of the capital 
stock of the company, and among them certificate No. 65, 
for 978 shares, 

from which he surrendered 156 shares, 

(a part of his 25 per cent, contribution), and 

made certificate No. 128, dated August 23, 
1882, for 822 shares. 

He had also signed this certificate, as Treasurer, but he gave 
me, the actual Treasurer, the certificate with instructions to 
make a new one in his name for 747 shares 

and another in Prof. Carmichael's name for 75 shares, 



and certificates Nos. 133 and 134, respective- 
ly, were accordingly made and signed by me, 
as Treasurer, 822 shares. 

It will be seen that while Prof. Carmichael had not actually 
received his certificates, the 150 shares of stock were nevertheless 
his, and I held them for him until I delivered the certificates 
thereof to Charles F. Libby, his attorney, as soon as I could 
secure the signature of the President of the company thereto. 
Col. John T. Richards, President of the company, was absent 
from home at the time, and there was therefore considerable 
delay. 

An examination of the certificate book will show that cer- 
tificates numbered from No. 96 to No. 133, dated from July 28, 
1882, to September 18, 1882, were erroneously signed by Hugh 
J. Chisholm, Treasurer. In the same way, he signed the Car- 
michael contract of September 9, 1882, signed by him as 
Treasurer, and by Charles D. Brown, C. B. Gardner, Franklin 
J. Rollins and George H. Knight, Directors. 

It will also show that the first three certificates issued by me, 
as Treasurer, were those numbered 133, 134 and 135, the last 
two being for 75 shares each, in the name of Henry Carmichael. 
The Stevens certificate, numbered 71, and the Chisholm cer- 



40 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

tificate, numbered 65, both bore the stamp that they were issued 
in payment for patents and machinery. 

The letter-book of the Fibre Ware Company, page 287, shows 
copy of a letter to John T. Eichards, dated August 16, 1882, 
which says : " T send you by express Fibre Ware Company 
certificate of stock book," and asks, " Will you please sign 30 
certificates? We want them at once for the Portland sub- 
scribers ; also to issue new certificates to the larger holders of 
stock, as you know we have agreed to do with Mr. Kollins, on 
the part of the syndicate." There is no reasonable doubt in my 
mind, that he signed certificates numbered from No. 101 to No. 
132. 

[ Witness requests that his examination be suspended here, 
that he may attend to some matters of personal concern / and 
such suspension is agreed to by counsel.^ 



June 4, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 
Gross-Examination by Mr. Libby resumed. 

X 134. At the last session of your examination, on June 
1st, you made a somewhat lengthy statement as to the time and 
circumstances attending the transfer of stock to you by Mr. 
Stevens, which finally was transferred to Prof. Carmichael, in 
consideration of the contract of September 9, 1882, said trans- 
fer not having been made to me as his attorney, as shown by 
the stub of your book of certificates, until September 30, 1882. 
What I now wish to ask is substantially what I asked you in 
Int. 132, before you had made the above statement. 

[Question 132 repeated.^ 

Ans. It was my very decided impression and firm belief, 
based wholly on recollection, without the aid of any memoranda 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 41 

or other written evidence, that you handed me, on the 14th of 
September, 1882, this contract and license, dated Sept. 9, 1882. 
I know that you handed me an envelope on that occasion with 
some papers in it. I know that I had the envelope at my in- 
terview with Prof. Carmichael the next morning. I remember 
that the envelope had your return notice on the left hand end. 
I have been informed by you that you did not give me this 
contract until September 30, and I have no doubt whatever 
that your statement is entirely true, and that therefore mine 
must have been erroneous. It is rather hard to place events in 
the order of their occurrence after an interval of some four 
years. 

X 135. Were you in Brunswick, at Prof. Carmichael's house, 
at any other time than Sept, 15, 1882, in that year? 

Ans. I was not. I never was at the house, where he then 
lived, but once. 

X 136. You mean in the year 1882, 1 suppose ? 

Ans. In the year 1882. 

X 137. Were you present, in Brunswick, where you saw 
him at any other place than his house, except on the date men- 
tioned, in that year ? 

Ans. I dare say I might have seen him several times. I 
don't remember when or where — except that I did not see him 
at his house. 

X 138. By " seeing him," in the above question, I don't 
mean catching sight of him, but having an interview with him. 

Ans. I supposed you alluded to an interview, rather than 
mere sight-seeing, and answered accordingly. 

\_Examination suspended, at 10.40 A. M. at the request of 
Carmichael's Counsel, to enable him to attend to a business mat- 
ter in Court.] 

X 139. What enables you to speak with so much positive- 
ness to the point that you had only one interview with Prof. 
Carmichael, in Brunswick, in the year of 1882 ? 
6— P.O. 



42 FEANKLIN J. KOLLINS. 

Ans. I do not say that. I had but one interview with him 
at his house. 

X 140. What enables you to be so positive that you did not 
have more than one interview with him at his house, in Bruns- 
wick in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. I had no occasion to see him at his house prior to this 
visit of Sept. 15th, nor subsequent thereto, according to my 
best knowledge and belief. I remember this visit of Sept. 15th, 
1882, with clearness and distinctness. 

X 141. Does it stand out in your memory distinctly as your 
first interview with Prof. Carmichael, in Brunswick ? 

Ans. It stands out distinctly in my memory as my first and 
only interview with him, at his house in Brunswick, during 1882. 

X 142. Did any one accompany you at this visit ? 

Ans. There did. 

X 143. Who was it ? 

Ans. Charles B. Gardner. 

X 144. And was he present during the interview you have 
detailed, with Prof. Carmichael ? 

Ans. He was. • 

X 145. How do you fix the date of September 15, 1882 ? 

Ans. I fix it because I remember that I visited Prof. Car- 
michael's house the next morning, after giving you the check 
beiore alluded to in this examination ; because of the date of 
the supplemental contract, also heretofore alluded to ; and 
because of a writing made by me at Prof. Carmichael's house, 
which bears the date of September 15, 1882, upon it. 

X 146. When did you first meet Prof. Carmichael, to know 
him, and where ? 

Ans. I first met him in Portland, in August or September, 
1882, in connection with the settlement of his claim against 
the Fibre Ware Company, or the enlargement of his contract 
with the Fibre Ware Company heretofore mentioned in this 
examination. 



FEANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 43 

X 147. Were you and Mr. C. B. Gardner at Prof. Carmi- 
michael's house at any other time in 1882, than the time 
mentioned, Sept. 15 ? 

Ans. We were never there together except Sept. 15, 1882. 

X 148. Are you positive on that point ? 

Ans. I am. 

X 149. Did his presence, at that time, have anything to 
do with the making of the contract for toy-yachts, which you 
have mentioned ? 

Ans. I don't know that it had anything particular to do 
with it. We went together to get Prof. Carmichael's formula 
for treating ware, and the contract regarding toy-yachts had 
previously been agreed upon in Mr. Libby's office, and Prof. 
Carmichael had promised to give it, by a separate instrument 
in writing, and he did so at that meeting. 

X 150. Was this the first time that Mr. C. B. Gardner had 
met Prof. Carmichael ? 

Ans. I am unable to say. 

X 151. Do you remember of applying to me for a letter of 
introduction for yourself and Mr. C. B. Gardner, to Prof. Car- 
michael ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 152. Did you ever obtain such letter from me, and af- 
terwards deliver it to Prof. Carmichael, in Brunswick ? 

Ans. I have no recollection of so doing. 

X 153. I produce a letter reading as follows : 

" Law Office of 
Chaeles F. Libby, 
34 Exchange St. Poetland, Me., Aug. 19, 1882. 

" Prof. Carmichael : 

" Allow me to introduce to you Mr. P. J. Eollins and Mr 
C. B. Gardner, the gentlemen who were expected take hold 
of the management of the Fibre Ware Company. They would 



44 FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 

like to talk with you before putting their money into the con- 
cern, so that they may understand exactly the situation. 

" Yours truly, 

" C. F. LlBBY." 

And ask you to examine it and state whether or not you 
received it from me at its date, and used it for the purpose 
therein indicated ? 

Ans. I do not remember any such letter. It may have 
been handed to Mr. Gardner, or it may have been handed to 
me. On reflection, I now remember that I met Prof. Carmichael 
at a meeting of the stockholders of the Fibre Ware Company, 
on July 19, 1882 ; so there would seem to have been no need of 
an introduction ; and I cannot see why I should have asked it. 

X 154. Do you mean by that that I wrote that letter with- 
out your applying to me for it ? 

Ans. I cannot say whether I applied for it or you volun- 
teered it — if I had anything to do with it. 

X 155. Will you state whether or not you did apply to me 
for that letter, and stated to me the fact that you desired it for 
the reasons stated therein ? 

Ans. I have no recollection about it. 

X 156. I see that before answering the last question, you 
have consulted a book, which appears to be a diary ; and I 
would ask whether or not you were able, after consulting it, to 
state where you were or went, on the 19th day of August, 1882 ? 

Ans. The book which I went for, and now have before me, 
is not a diary in one sense. It is a record of adjustments of 
fire-losses ; and I merely consulted it to see if it showed that I 
was away from Portland at that date. It does not show that 
I was, nor where I went, nor where I was on the 19th day of 
August, 1882. 

X 157. Will you examine the envelope which I produce 
accompanying the letter already shown you — the envelope hav- 
ing upon it the written address as follows : 



franklin j. rollins. 45 

" Prof. Henry Carmichel, 

Brunswick. 

Introducing ) 

Mess. Kollins & Gardner." \ 

and state whether or not, you delivered the letter of introduc- 
tion which I have already showed you in this unsealed envelope 
to Prof. Carmichael, in Brunswick, at his house. 

Ans. I have not the slightest recollection of the letter, or 
the envelope. 

X 158. In view of this letter and envelope to which I have 
called your attention, do you now wish to change any of your 
previous testimony which you have given ? 

Ans. I do not, only so far as to say that I first met Prof. 
Carmichael, as I now recollect, on the 19th day of July, 1882, 
as I have before stated. I have no recollection of ever seeing 
the letter or envelope before. 

X 159. Do you mean by that, that you have any doubt 
that this letter was written by me on your application, at the 
date it bears? 

Ans. I have no doubt it was written by you on the date it 
bears ; and it may have been at my request, or upon the request 
of C. B. Gardner. 

X 160. Was 0. B. Gardner a resident of Portland ? 

Ans. His family did not reside in Portland. He was, and 
had for some years previous been much in Portland, and until the 
spring of 1882 had been manager of the National Bell Tele- 
phone Company, of the State of Maine, stopping most of the 
time with his wife's brother, Payson Tucker. 

X 161. At the time this letter of August 19, 1882, was 
written, had I, so far as you know, any acquaintance with Mr. 
C. B. Gardner ? 

Ans. I have no means of knowing that you had. 

X 162. At the time this letter was written by me, had you 



46 FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 



and I had a personal acquaintance of quite a number of years 
standing ? 

Ans. I think we had been acquainted since 1863. 

X 163. What time in the day, on September 15, 1882, did 
you go to Brunswick, and how long did you remain there? 

Ans. I went there on the 7 o'clock morning train, but can- 
not say whether I returned on the noon train, or went East. 

X 164. How long were you at that time at Prof. Carmi- 
chael's house ? 

Ans. We arrived at the house, probably at half past eight, 
and remained about an hour or an hour and a half. 

X 165. You speak, in your previous testimony, of being in 
Brunswick with B. F. Brown on the 7th day of March, 1884. 
What time did you arrive in Brunswick on that day, and how 
long did you remain ? 

Ans. We arrived there about 6:30 p. m. and remained until 
midnight, or thereabouts, leaving on the midnight train for 
home. 

X 166. Is your memory quite clear on this point ? 

Ans. It is. 

X 167. Where did you and Mr, Brown dine that day ? 

Ans. We dined at the house of Mr. Lombard, at North 
Gorham, Maine. 

X 168. Were you and Mr. B. F. Brown ever at Prof. Car- 
michael's house, in Brunswick, at any other time than on this 
7th day of March, 1884? 

Ans. Only at the time designated. 

X 169. Where did you and Mr. Brown take supper on that 
day? 

Ans. At the eating house at the station. 

X 170. Did you ever take any meal with Mr. Brown at 
Prof. Carmichael's house ? 

Ans. I think some ice cream and cake was given us during 
our tarry there. 



FKANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 47 

X 171. In your answer to the 6th Int. you state that Prof. 
Carmichael " made rough sketches illustrating the ideas of Mr. 
Bodge and his own, in regard to methods of forming pulp ware." 
Please state what ideas of Mr. Bodge, and what ideas of his 
own, he so illustrated. 

Ans. He some time, in the spring or early summer of 1882, 
had, as he represented, been at Waterville, and Mr. Bodge had 
then talked with him about a plunger machine. I explained 
to him that he had abandoned that idea and was then using a 
different process in connection with a rubber bag or diaphragm 
— I don't know which term I used ; that I had seen a pail formed 
upon the machine, which seemed to be perfect in form, though 
lacking in compactness. I also spoke of a suggestion made 
by Mr. Chisholm frequently that a dome should be affixed to 
the machine, so that hydraulic pressure could be applied, and 
that it was my impression that the company were then con- 
structing such a machine. I do not remember the exact lan- 
guage used, but have given the substance of it. 

X 172. My inquiry was what ideas of his own, and what 
ideas of Mr. Bodge, he illustrated by sketches, as stated in 
the quotation from your answer to the 6th interrogatory. 

Ans. He made various sketches. I do not recall which he 
made as his, and which as Mr. Bodge's. 

X 173. What ideas of " his own in regard to methods of 
forming pulp ware" did he illustrate to you by sketches, as 
stated in your answer to the 6th interrogatory ? 

Ans. The inclosing of the barrel or cylinder at the top, so 
as to apply pressure, being the same as Mr. Chisholm had illus- 
trated to me and others in my presence several times previously. 

X 174. Applying pressure in what way ? 
Ans. Hydraulic pressure. 

X 175. With or without the use of a rubber diaphram ? 
Ans. With the use of a rubber diaphram — both Chisholm 
and Carmichael. 



48 FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 



X 176. What ideas of Mr. Bodge did he illustrate by- 
sketches at that time ? 

Ans. He said that Mr. Bodge was using the plunger ma- 
chine and I think he so illustrated. 

X 177. In your answer to Int. 9 and also in your answer 
to Int. 171, you say that you had seen a pail formed on the 
machine marked Bodge Exhibit No. 2, with a rubber diaphram 
therein. Will you please state when that was, and in what 
way the machine operated to form the pail, and how the parts 
were adjusted? 

Ans. It was on the 17th day of August, 1882. The rubber 
was applied to the lower end of the barrel or cylinder, drum- 
head fashion, and a string tied around the barrel. Pulp was 
forced in and the diaphragm was expanded thereby and by the 
former. This barrel set upon a frame, and the pulp was forced 
up between the perforated former and the rubber diaphragm. 
I stood close beside the machine and witnessed the expansion 
of the rubber and its subsequent contraction. The barrel or 
cylinder had no top to it, so that the expansion and contrac- 
tion could be watched. There was no pressure other than at- 
mospheric, and the contracting power of the rubber applied to 
the outside of the diaphragm. 

X 178. How was the atmospheric pressure obtained ? 

Ans. I know of no other way than by suction from beneath. 
I did not witness that part. 

X 179. Was this machine, on which you saw the pail 
formed, on the 17th day of August, 1882, a plunger machine, 
which had formerly been in use at the factory at Waterville ? 

Ans. I had never seen a plunger in the machine. 

X 180. Do you see a plunger by the side of it now; and if 
so, have you ever been informed that that plunger was formerly 
a part of the machine, when it was operated as a plunger ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. I see before me what is said to have been a part of a 



FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 49 

plunger ; and I have been told that it was formerly in use with 
a cylinder or barrel as a plunger machine. 

[Adjourned to June 5, 1886, 3 p. m.] 



June 5, 3:10 p. m. 

X 181. When did you first learn that Prof. Carmichael 
claimed that he had communicated his invention to Mr. Bodge, 
in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I never heard of any interview between Prof. Car- 
michael and Mr. Bodge until the morning of the 15th of Sep- 
tember, 1882 ; and then is as early as I could have heard it, if 
he then claimed it. 

X 182. When did you first learn that he claimed to have 
made sketches of his invention, showing its operation, upon an 
envelope, for Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. When I was at Prof. Carmichael's house, the evening 
of March 7, 1884, as I now believe. 

X 183. Under what circumstances ? 

Ans. When he brought into the rooms at his house, where 
I then was, the envelope upon which were marks with a blue and 
red pencil, with Mr. Putnam's return notice on the end. 

X 184. What did he say about it ? 

Ans. He said that he had conceived the same invention, 
that Bodge was then using, in 1882. This was the substance 
of his statement. 

X 185. Did he say nothing about the envelope that he 
showed you ? 

Ans. The envelope was before us. 

X 186. What connection had the envelope with his state- 
ments ? 

7— P. 0. 



50 FEANKLTN J. ROLLINS. 

Ans. He referred to a sort of double machine illustrated by 
his sketches, showing a rubber diaphragm, and how hydraulic 
pressure might be applied ; and I told him that I had seen Mr. 
Chisholm make similiar sketches before I ever put a dollar of 
money into the company. I asked him if he had ever made, 
in his laboratory, or elsewhere, experiments to demonstrate the 
practical workings of his conceived invention. He said he had 
not. I then remarked that his conceiving the invention was 
all the claim he had. If he made any reply, I have forgotten 
it. I suggested it interrogatively — or rather remarked it inter- 
rogatively. 

X 187. Where did the statement come in, that connected 
Mr. Bodge with that envelope, and gave you the first knowledge 
that Prof. Carmichael claimed that the sketches had been made 
for Mr. Bodge, as stated in your answer to the 182d interroga- 
tory? 

Ans. I think he claimed that these illustrations were made 
in Mr. Bodge's presence, or had been shown to Mr. Bodge. 

X 188. What comment or reply, if any, did you make to 
Prof. Carmichael, at the time that he made such statement ? - 

Ans. I do not think I made any reply to it. 

X 189. In your reply to the 48th Int. as to the statement 
made by Col. Richards at the meeting of September 7, 1883, 
you were asked to state the prhe that Mr. Bodge demanded 
for the sale to the company, of his invention. In giving your 
answer, you read from the records of the Fibre Ware Company. 
Will you please give the whole communication from Mr. Bodge 
on this matter, as spread upon the records ? 

Ans. The following proposition was received from Mr. 
Bodge through his attorney, Mr. Newell : 

To the Fibre Ware Company : Mr. Bodge offers through 
his attorney, Mr. Newell, to license the Fibre Ware Company 
to manufacture pails and other ware, by the processes which he 
has perfected in the mills and at the expense of said company. 

Second. He, Mr. Bodge, through his attorney, Mr. Newell, 



. FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 51 

offers, for a consideration of ten thousand dollars (S10,000) in 
cash and fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) in stock of the Fibre 
Ware Company, to be paid in one year's time, to assign any 
patents which he has or may obtain, upon said processes as 
above, with the understanding that the capital stock of the said 
Fibre Ware Company shall not exceed one hundred and twenty- 
five thousand dollars ($125,000), to be made up of money paid 
in plant, Prof. Carmichael's patents and his said Bodge's patents. 
He further agrees to give said company one year to test the 
value of said patents, and elect whether or not they will take 
said patents at said price, the company binding themselves, if 
they decide that they will not take the patents, that they will 
not enter into any law suit on account of them, nor make him 
any cost ; and that they will have the pending injunction dis- 
solved ; also that they shall defend any suits that may be 
brought for infringements by any parties during the said term 
of one year, unless they may decide sooner not to take the 
patent. 

He further agrees, should the company decline to take said 
patents, that he will refund the said company the amount that 
they have expended in experimenting, and take out the ma- 
chine. 

Signed, John T. Eichards. 

X 190. Did the company accept this proposition ? 

Ans. They did not. 

X 191. What was the pending injunction referred to in Mr. 
Bodge's foregoing proposition, which he stipulated that the 
company should have dissolved ? 

[ Objected to — as calling for parol evidence to prove matter of 
record.'] 

Ans. An injunction to restrain him, Bodge, from assigning 
his patents. 

X 192. On what grounds had the company applied for that 
injunction ? 

[ Objected tc — calling for parol evidence concerning a matter to 
be proved properly by the record.'] 

Ans. On the ground that he had been employed by the 
company to invent or perfect a pail machine, and that the sal- 



52 EEANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 

ary which they had agreed to pay was to be in full compensa- 
tion for his inventive services. 

X 193. To whom was the patent finally transferred by Mr. 
Bodge, after this injunction was obtained, and at what time, if 
you remember ? 

Ans. It was assigned to me, on the 9th day of April, 1884. 

X 194. If you have the original assignment, will you allow 
the Examiner to make a copy to make a part of your deposi- 
tion ? 

[ Objected to — immaterial.'] 

Ans. I have neither the original, nor a copy. 

X 195. Where is the original assignment to you from Mr. 
Bodge of this patent ? 

Ans. I do not know ; I think it is with the Treasurer of 
the Indurated Fibre Company. 

X 196. For whose benefit did you take the assignment of 
this patent, as stated by you ? 

Ans. For the benefit of the company, just previously organ- 
ized, under the name of the Indurated Fibre Company. 

X 197. Did this company succeed to the property and busi- 
ness of the Fibre Ware Company? 

Ans. It did. 

X 198. Does the Indurated Fibre Company bear the ex- 
pense of these Interference proceedings in defending the patent 
of Mr. Bodge, now owned by them ? 

f Objected to — immaterial and irrelevant] 

Ans. It does. 

X 199. Where is the mill of the Indurated Fibre Company, 
in which pails are made by them, under the Bodge patent ? 

Ans. At North Gorham, Cumberland Co., Maine, 12 or 14 
miles from this city. 

X 200. How far from the mill of the Sebago Wood Board 
Company, in Windham ? 

Ans. The mills of the Sebago Wood Board Company are 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 53 



some four or five miles nearer this city — both being on the Pre- 
sumpscot river. 

X 201. Who are the officers of the Indurated Fibre Com- 
pany ? 

[Objected to — immaterial and irrelevant.'] 

Ans. Charles D. Brown, President ; Charles A. Brown, Sec 
retary ; E. B. Denison, Treasurer ; the Directors are Charles D. 
Brown, Charles A. Brown, and Franklin J. Rollins, all of Port- 
land ; Charles H. Anderson and B. Frank Brown, both of Con- 
cord, N. H. ; and George W. Russell, of Lawrence, Mass. 



Be-Direct Examination by Mr. Lunt. 

R. D, 202. In your answer to X Int. 145, " How do you fix 
the date of September 15, 1882," you replied : " I fix it because I 
remember that I visited Prof. Carmichael's house the next 
morning after giving you the check before alluded to in this 
examination ; because of the date of the supplemental contract 
also heretofore alluded to ; and because of a writing made by 
me at Prof. Carmichael's house, which bears the date of Sept. 
15, 1882 upon it." What was the writing then and there 
made by you, and will you produce it, if you have it, and state 
any circumstances connected with the making thereof, which 
you remember? 

Ans. It is a check drawn by me on the Merchant's National 
Bank, of Portland, Maine, for $179.75, given to Prof. Carmi- 
chael in payment of C. C. Hutchin's bill for services and ex- 
penses in connection with the Treatment House, at Brunswick. 
It is payable to C. C. Hutchins or order, and was written with 
a fluid pencil which Prof. Carmichael courteously loaned me. 
The fluid pencil was somewhat out of order, and he questioned 
my ability to write with it. 



54 FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 

\_Said check here introduced and marked "Bodge Exhibit JVb. 
10 — A. B. D., Ex'r, June 5, 1886."] 

[Adjourned to Monday, June 7, 1886, at 9:30 a. m.] 



June 7, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 

[Met pursuant to adjournment, at the same place, same parties 

present.] 

E. D. 203. Referring to your last answer in which you pro- 
duced a check written at Prof. Carmichael's house, have you 
certain other checks written on the same day by you at anoth- 
er place, and with another pen or pencil, and also checks writ- 
ten by you the day before, and also the check delivered to Mr. 
C. C. Hutchins for his work or services previously rendered ? 
If so, will you produce such checks ? 

[ Objected so — as immaterial and irrelevant.'] 

Ans. I have such checks ; one check dated Sept. 15, 1882, 
is upon Merchant's National Bank, of Portland, for the sum of 
$200, — payable to Chas. B. Gardner ; another dated Sept. 15, 
1882, drawn upon the same Bank for $356.78, and is payable 
to J. Gr. Bodge, Supt. Fibre Ware Co. ; another drawn Sept. 14, 
1882, for the sum of $800,— is payable to W. B. Arnold & 
Co. ; another drawn Sept. 14, 1882, for the sum of $225, — is 
payable to Fibre Ware Co.'s note, or bearer ; another dated 
Aug. 17, 1882, is drawn upon the same Bank to order of C. C. 
Hutchins, on account of the Fibre Ware Co. ; this last named 
check is a Casco National Bank check, changed so as to read 
Merchant's National Bank, and is numbered 495. 

[Five checks introduced and marked u Bodge Exhibit No. 11, 
—A. B. P., ExW, June 7, 1886."] 

E. D. 204. In your answer to X Int. 163 you state, in ref- 



. FRANKLIN J. EOLLTNS. 55 

erence to your going to Brunswick on Sept. 15, 1882, "I went 
there on the 7 o'clock morning train, but cannot say whether 
I returned on the noon train, or went East." Does a reference 
to the checks introduced enable you to now state whether you 
returned to Portland or went East at that time ? 

Ans. A reference to the checks introduced and other docu- 
mentary evidence enables me to sa\ that I returned to Portland 
on the noon train of Sept. 15, 1882, and did not go East until 
the following Monday. 

E. D. 205. With what kind of writing instruments did you 
write the five checks, Bodge Exhibit No. 11 ? 

Ans. With an ordinary gold or steel pen. 

R D. 206. Where were the checks, Bodge Exhibit No. 11, 
written, in what city or place ? 

[ Objected to as immaterial and irrelevant, and as not relating 
to any matter brought out on cross-examination.'] 

Ans. At my office, 22 Exchange St., Portland, Maine. 

E. D. 207. State whether you were in the habit of using at 
about that time, when those checks were drawn by you, a fluid 
pencil ? 

Ans. I was not in the habit of using a fluid pencil. 

E. D. 208. When on Sept. 15, 1882, that is to say, in what 
part of the day, did you write the two checks, one to Chas. B. 
Gardner, and the o' her to J. G-. Bodge, Supt. Fibre Ware Co. ? 

Ans. In the afternoon of that day. 

E. D. 209. In your answer to X Int. 134, put by Mr. 
Libby, you state : " I have been informed by you that you did 
not give me this contract until September 30th, and I have no 
doubt whatever that your statement is entirely true, and that 
therefore mine must have been erroneous." Previously in the 
same answer you stated : " It was my very decided impression 
and belief, based wholly upon recollection, without the aid of 
any memoranda or other witten evidence, that you handed me 
on the 14th of September, 1882, this contract and license dated 



56 FftANKLIN J. E0LL1NS. 

September 9, 1882. I know that you handed me an envelope on 
that occasion with some papers in it. I know that I had the 
envelope at my interview with Prof. Carmichael the next morn- 
ing. I remember that the envelope had your return notice on 
the left hand end." Are you able now to make any statement 
explaining or making certain the fact of the delivery to you, or 
possession by you, of any papers or contracts referred to in said 
answer, and if so, will you proceed ? 

Ans. As I have quite a number of times stated, I had de- 
layed putting money into the Fibre Ware Company, contributed 
by my friends of what had been termed a syndicate, until this 
matter of Prof. Carmichael's had been fully settled ; and it seems 
to me now that Mr. Libby must have been mistaken in his 
statement that he did not deliver me this contract until Sep- 
tember 30, 1882. He might have entrusted it to me without 
considering it a formal delivery. We had no occasion while at 
Brunswick to refer to this contract, and I need not at any stage 
of these proceedings have alluded to it, as it was voluntarily 
brought in by me. An envelope of about nine inches in length 
I certainly had with me at Prof. Carmichael's house on Sep- 
tember 15, 1882 ; and I remember distinctly of comparing the 
return notice on the left hand end thereof with the envelope 
having Mr. Putnam's return notice on the end, upon which 
illustrations had been or were afterwards made. One envelope 
requested return to Chas. F. Libby's Law Office, 34 Exchange 
St., Portland, Me., and the other Mr. Putnam's po3t office box 
number. I remember of inquiring of myself which was the 
better form of return notice. 

E. D. 210. Eef erring to your last answer where you state : " I 
had delayed putting money into the Fibre Ware Company, con- 
tributed by my friends of what had been termed a sydnicate," 
and also to that part where you say in reference to the envelope 
having Mr. Putnam's notice on the end: "Upon which illustra- 
tions had been, or were afterwards made." Had you personally 



FRANKLIN J. ROLLINS. 57 



invested some money in the Fibre Ware Company, previous to 
September 15, 1882 ; and in reference to the envelope, to what 
time do you allude when you say " Upon which illustrations 
had been or were afterwards made " ? 

Ans. I had, as I have before stated, paid certain notes and 
bills of the Fibre Ware Company to the extent of some $500, 
or thereabouts. The time to which I allude when I say " upon 
which illustrations had been or were afterwards made," was at 
what time of that very day. I do not remember whether the 
comparison of return notices was made before or after the illus- 
trations made at his house in my presence on that day with the 
pencil blue at one end and red at the other. 

E. D. 211. I believe you have stated that you were elected 
Treasurer of the Fibre Ware Company on July 19, 1882. Will 
you please state when you took charge, if you ever did, of the 
books and papers relating to the business of that office, and en- 
tered upon the performance of the duties thereof ? State all the 
circumstances relating to your assuming the duties, and to your 
possession of stock certificate book, etc. 

Ans. I find, on reflection, that I declined to accept the 
office of Treasurer to which I had been elected on the 19th of 
July, 1882, until I and my friends had fully decided whether 
or not to take the large amount of stock we had agreed to pur- 
chase in event the patents were found satisfactory. They were 
not found satisfactory, and quite a number of the contemplated 
syndicate declined to invest in the stock. The contract or li- 
cense with Prof. Carmichael, dated July 1, 1882, was very far 
from satisfactory, and until that was modified I did not accept 
the treasurership, and Mr. Chisholm continued to act as Treas- 
urer of the company. The modified contract, dated Sept. 9, 
1882, was constructively, at any rate, in my possession on Sept. 
15, 1882, and Prof. Carmichael had, on that day, given me the 
formula for treating ware named in said contract, and had also 
given me the supplemental contract relating to toy yachts, 
8— P. 0. 



58 FKANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 



dated that day, and it was then that I fully decided to put my 
money and the money of my friends into the stock of the Fibre 
Ware Co. On Monday morning, the 18th of September, 1882, 
I went to Rockland, Me., and on my return next day, I noti- 
fied Mr. Chisholm that I would assume the duties of the office 
of Treasurer of the Fibre Ware Co. Mr. O'Brion had been 
clerk for Mr. Chisholm, Treasurer of said company, and he 
continued to perform the clerical duties of the office under me. 
The account books of the company were kept in Mr. Chisholm's 
office in Portland, until Mr. O'Brion took them to Waterville a 
short time subsequent, where they were afterwards kept until 
the fire of March, 1884. The certificate of stock book was 
taken by me about this 19th of September, 1882, and was the 
only book kept at my office, 22 Exchange Street, Portland. 

E. D. 212. Were any certificates of stock put into your 
hands by the company in the month of September, 1882, to 
hold as trustee for any purpose? 

Ans. There were one hundred and fifty shares of stock 
placed in my hands by Hugh J. Chisholm and Grrenville M. 
Stevens, in August or September, 1882, to be used by me in 
payment of Prof. Carmichael for the contract dated Sept. 9, 1882. 
Stevens and Chisholm each contributed seventy-five shares 
thereof. 

R. D. 213. In your answer to X Int. 102 you state in sub- 
stance that at the interview of September 15, 1882, Prof. Car- 
michael produced his formula and then made an explanation 
concerning the use of " linseed-oil." Will you please produce and 
permit to be used as an exhibit the formula then delivered to 
you by Prof. Carmichael, and state whether or not the formula 
and process was then fur the first time made known to you ? 

Ans. Here is the formula. [Formula introduced and 
marked " Bodge Exhibit No. 12,— A. H. D., Ex'r, June 7, 1886," 
written on two sheets of paper.] The formula was then for the 
first time made known to me. 



FSANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 59 

E. D. 214. In whose handwriting is Bodge Exhibit No. 12, 
the formula ? 

Ans. In Prof. Carmichael's. 

[Re-direct examination closed here.] 

Be- Gross- Examination by M.R. C. F. Libby. 

R. X 215. From your answer to the 209th Int. I am un- 
able to determine whether you wish to be understood as swear- 
ing that the agreement of September 9th, 1882, was in fact de- 
livered by me to you on September 14th, 1882. Will you 
please make your testimony on that point explicit ? 

Ans. I cannot help thinking that you delivered this con- 
tract to me on the 14th day of September, 1882, with the expecta- 
tion that I should go to Brunswick the next day and might de- 
sire to refer to it in procuring the supplemental contract which 
Prof. Carmichael saw fit to give me on the 15th day of Septem- 
ber, 1882 ; it may be with the understanding that it should be 
given you again on my return fron Brunswick. It is a matter 
to which I have given most thoughtful consideration, and have 
tried to reconcile your statement that you did not give it to me 
until September 30th, with my recollection of having it at 
Prof. Carmichael's house in Brunswick, on September 15th, 
1882. We had no occasion to use the contract on said 15th 
day of September, as I now remember. 

R. X 216. In your statement made at the commencement 
of the morning session of May 31, you stated that the contract 
of Sept. 9, 1882, was delivered by me to you on the 14th day of 
September ; and subsequently in your answer to the 134th Int. 
I understood you to modify your statement in that regard. 
What I wish to ask you is, are you now willing to swear def- 
initely that you received the contract of Sept. 9, 1882, from 
me on the 14th day of September, 1882. 

[ Objected to as matter not inquired of on the Be-direct.'} 



60 GEOEGE S. WINN. 



Arts. I cannot swear definitely in regard to the matter. 

E. X 217. What have been your relations with Prof. Car- 
michael since September, 1882, up to this time ? 

[ Objected to as before.'] 

Ans. Pleasant, friendly relations. 

E. X 218. Whether or not during the past year you have 
entertained him as your guest at your invitation ? 

Ans. I have at the Waldo House, Little Chebeague Island. 

FEANKLIN J. EOLLINS. 

[Adjourned here at 12 m. to 2 P. m. of the same day.] 



June 1, 1886, 10:45 A. m. 

Geokge S. "Winn, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by Wilbuk F. Lunt, Esq., Counsel 
for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. Please give your name, age, residence and occupa- 
tion. 

Ans. George S. Winn ; 42 years ; Portland ; book-keeper. 

2. Where were you employed, and in what capacity, in the 
year 1882, from July 1, to November 1, inclusive ? 

Ans. I was in the office of Franklin J. Eollins, Collector of 
Internal Eevenue, as clerk for him, at 22 Exchange St., Portland. 

3. During what period were you there employed by Mr. 
Eollins? 

Ans. From August, 1877, to October, 1884. 

4. Will you please to state, whether or not any pencils 
were there kept, or used in the office of Mr. Eollins, while you 
were so employed by him ? And if so, what kind ? 



GEORGE S. WINN. 61 



Ans, We used the ordinary black lead pencil — used in all 
offices. We also had some octagonal shaped pencils, with two 
colored leads — red at one end and blue at the other. 

5. In the months of July, August and September, 1882, 
were such octagonal pencils, marking red at one end and blue 
at the other — there in Mr. Rollins' office ? 

Ans. There were such pencils there. 

6. Where were they kept ? 

Ans. They were kept about Mr. Eollins' roll-top desk, in a 
parting — pigeon-hole you might call it — in the top part of the 
desk. 

7. Will you please look at Bodge Exhibit No. 1, and state 
whether you perceive any point of similarity in that pencil, to 
those which Mr. Rollins so kept in his desk ? 

Ans. I should say it was one of the same pencils. 

8. Calling your attention to the box, now before you, marked : 
" Bodge Exhibit No. 9,— A. H. D., Ex'r, June 1, 1886," with 
its contents, consisting of three pencils and a label, state whether 
or not you recognize the box or have seen it before, 

Ans. I do recognize it, and have seen it a great many times. 

9. Where was that box kept and what did it contain ? 
Ans. It was kept in one of the pigeon-holes in the top of 

Mr. Rollins' desk ; and contained pencils like this one tagged : 
Bodge Exhibit, No. 1. 

10. Do you know whether or not, in the summer and fall 
of 1882, Mr. Franklin J. Rollius carried such a pencil as this 
one : Bodge Exhibit No. 1 ? 

Ans. It was invariably his custom to carry such a pencil. 

11. State whether or not you have seen Mr. Rollins use 
such a pencil. 

Ans. I have. 

12. How frequently ? 

Ans. I could not give you any particular time, but very 



62 GEOKGE J. DAMEKY. 



frequently — about checking, drawing plans for anything he 
wished to illustrate. 

13. Are you now employed by Mr. Eollins ; if not, how 
long since ? 

Ans. I am not. I left his employ on October 15, 1884. 

[Cross-Examination waived.] 

[Witndss adds — that the pencil referred to as octagonal should 
properly be styled hexagonal.'] 

GEOKGE S. WINN. 

[Adjourned here to 2 o'clock p. m. same day.] 



June 1, 1886. 
Geokge J. Dameey, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by Wilbue F. Lunt, Esq., of Counsel 
for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. Please give your name, age, residence and occupation. 
Ans. George J. Damery ; 24 years ; Portland ; clerk and 
messenger for Wm. L. Putnam, counsellor-at-law. 

2. Where is Mr. Putnam's office ? 
Ans. Portland, Maine, 36 Exchange St. 

3. Does Mr. Putnam have a box in the post office at Port- 
land ? 

Ans. He does. 

4. What is the number of that box ? 
Ans. 1576. 

5. How long, to your knowledge, has he had that box ? 
Ans. I could not say — oh, he has eight or ten years, I know, 

sure. 



GOERGE J. DAMERY. 63 



6. Will you please look at Carmichael Exhibit A, and say 
who wrote the address upon that envelope — the words : " Prof. 
Henry Carmichael, Brunswick, Maine." 

Ans. I did. 

7. Where were you when you wrote that address ? 
Ans. I presume in Mr. Putnam's office. 

8. Were you employed in his office, on the 22d of June, 
1882? 

Ans. I was. 

9. Will you please to examine this envelope, and state 
whether or not such envelopes as that were used by Mr. Put- 
nam in 1882 ? 

Ans. I think they were. 

10. Will you state what printed words, if any, are now up- 
on the return notice on the left hand end of the envelope, Ex- 
hibit A ? 

Ans. " Eeturn to P. 0. Box, " and underneath, " fo." 

11. Calling your attention to Bodge Exhibit No. 6, will you 
please state what words formed the return notice used by Mr. 
Putnam on his envelopes in 1882 ? 

Ans. " Eeturn to P. O. Box 1576, Portland, Me., if not 
called for in six days," — as it reads now on Bodge Exhibit No. 6. 



And in answer to cross-interrogatories proposed to him by Mr. 
Charles F. Libby, Esq., counsel for Carmichael, he saith : 

X 12. In answer to Int. 9 you say that you think envelopes 
like Exhibit A were in use by Mr. Putnam, in the year 1882. 
Is there anything peculiar about that envelope which enables 
you to assign it to the year 1882, rather than to any other year ; 
or to speak definitely, as to the time in which it was used by 
him? 



64 GEORGE J. DAMEKY. 



Ans. Nothing more than the return notice to it, which I 
think we have had four years or more, at least. 

X 13. When you speak of the return notice in your last 
answer, do you refer to the notice on Exhibit A, or on Bodge 
Exhibit No. 6 ? 

Ans. I refer to both notices, with the exception of the Bodge 
notice. The difference seems to be in the type — the type in the 
Bodge notice seems to be smaller than in the Carmichael letter 
— the Carmichael letter being the oldest one, I should think, 
from appearance. I first thought that the types were different 
— that one was larger than the other ; but I guess they are the 
same, on close inspection. 

X 14. Do you claim that you can determine from the few 
printed words now appearing on the Carmichael Exhibit A, the 
time when such an envelope was in use ? 

Ans. I think I could claim that that printed head has been 
printed there on them envelopes four years, at least, or more. 

X 15. How do you reach that result ? 

Ans. Because seeing them every day — that kind of en- 
velopes. 

X 16. How does that enable you to determine, in which 
one of the four years that you say Mr. Putnam has used them, 
this particular envelope was used ? 

Ans. From the fact that the orders given to Mr. Davis to 
have a certain number of envelopes, when we order them, 
printed. 

X 17. How does that fact enable you to determine the par- 
ticular year in which the envelope was used ? 

Ans. Because the envelope speaks for itself. 

X 18. Has the envelope any date showing the year upon it ? 

Ans. It has not, I think. 

X 19. How, then, does the envelope speak for itself? 

Ans. From the fact that we have been using them for at 
least four years or more. 



GOEKGE J. DAMEKY. 65 



X 20. What is there to show, upon the envelope itself, that 
it was not sent out in the year 1883 or 1884? 

Ans. There does not seem to be any post-mark, to show 
what year it was post-marked. 

X 21. As a matter of fact, are you able from an inspection 
of the envelope, to state in which one, if any, of the last four 
years that envelope was sent out ? 

Ans. No. I should not swear in what year it was sent 
out in. 

X 22. Is there sufficient of the return notice left on Ex- 
hibit A, to enable you to form an opinion that that envelope 
had ever been in Mr. Putnam's office, did you not find upon it 
your own handwriting ? 

Ans. No. I should not swear to that — only by seeing my 
own handwriting there. 

X 23. In your judgment, is the paper of Carmichael Ex- 
hibit A, and Bodge Exhibit No. 6, the same weight and va- 
riety of paper? 

Ans. "When the envelopes are ordered, word is sent to send 
over — or to have printed, rather — so many envelopes ; and we 
presume that Mr. Davis sends over the same kind and quality 
as the former. 

X 24 Will you examine the two exhibits referred to in 
Int. 23, and state, if you know, whether they are both of the 
same kind and quality of envelopes and paper ? 

Ans. They seem to be about of one size — the quality, I 
suppose, Mr. Davis could tell about. 

X 25. Will you examine Exhibit No. 6, and state if you 
can tell in what year that envelope was sent out from Mr. 
Putnam's office. 

Ans. There is nothing on it to indicate. I did not write 
that letter — I mean the address. 

GEOKGE J. DAMEKY. 

9— P. 0. 



66 DANIEL BROOKS. 



June 1, 1886, 3 p. m. 

Daniel Brooks, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., of Counsel 
for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Daniel Brooks ; 47 years ; Portland ; clerk and book- 
keeper for Wm. L. Putnam, of Portland. 

2. Were you employed in Mr. Putnam's office in the year 
1882? 

Ans. I was. 

3. In that year, were any writings made in Mr. Putnam's 
office for Prof. Henry Carmichael, of Brunswick ? 

Ans. There were. 

4. When and what? 

Ans. In June, 1882, an agreement between Prof. Car- 
michael and the Fibre Ware Company. 

5. Upon what size of paper was such agreement written ? 
Ans. Legal cap — from my best recollection. 

6. What was done with the agreement, after it was written 
in Mr. Putnam's office ? 

Ans. I think it was sent to the Professor for examination. 

7. Was any letter sent with it ? 
Ans. There was. 

8. What was the date of such letter ? 
Ans. I think June 22, 1882. 

9. Calling your attention to envelope Carmichael Exhibit 
A, will you please state whether this envelope was sent from 
Mr. Putnam's office ? 

Ans. I should have no doubt but what it was. 

10. What other correspondence requiring transmission, in 
envelopes, has been sent from Mr. Putnam's office to Prof. 
Carmichael, since the 22d of June, 1882 ? 



DANIEL EEOOKS. 67 



Ans. I have no knowledge of but one other letter — still 
there may have been others. 

11 When was that other letter written ? 
Ans. The 27th of July, of the same year. 
12. Upon paper of what size ? 
Ans. Note paper. 

[Adjourned here at 5 P. m. to June 2, 1886, 9:30 a. m.] 



June 2, 1886. 

[Met pursuant to adjournment, same place and same parties 

present.] 

13. Were any other communications, in writing, sent by 
mail from Mr. Putnam's office to Prof. Carmichael, at Bruns- 
wick, in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. They were none in relation to this matter. 

14. Or any other matter ? 

Ans. No other matter, to my knowledge. 



In answer to cross-interrogatories proposed to him by Chakles 
F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for Carmichael, he saith as follows, 
to wit : 

X 15. In answer to Int. 3, you state in substance, that in 
the year 1882, certain writings were made in Mr. Putnam's 
office, for Prof. Carmichael. Do you mean by that, that Mr 
Putnam was acting at that time as attorney or counsel for 
Prof. Carmichael? 

Ans. I do not. 



68 DANIEL BROOKS. 



X 16. What do you mean ? 

Ans. He was acting for both parties, as I understood — or 
all parties concerned. 

X 17. Have you, or not, knowledge, that at that time, and 
for some time previous, Mr. Putnam had been counsel for the 
Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. I have, and I had. 

X 18. Have you not knowledge, that the correspondence 
of your office discloses the fact that in consequence of being 
such counsel for the Fibre Ware Company, he could not act 
as attorney or counsel for Prof. Carmichael in the matters which 
were then pending between the latter and the Fibre Ware 
Company ? 

Ans. I have. 

X 19. In answer to Int. 4, and subsequent interrogatories, 
you state that in June, 1882, an agreement was prepared and 
sent to Prof. Carmichael from Mr. Putnam's office, with a letter, 
dated June 22, 1882. If you have a press copy of such letter 
will you dictate its contents to the Examiner ? 

Ans. It is as follows : 

Portland, Me., June 22, 1882. 
Dear Sir : — Your esteemed favor of 19th inst. reed. The Fi- 
bre Ware Company have left the matter in my hands, to do 
what I think is right between the parties. I enclose you draft 
of agreement for your examination. I can confer with you about 
it here, Wednesday, of next week, if you seasonably notify me 
to that effect. It does not conform exactly to your suggestions, 
as will be explained upon a conference, or modified. 

Very Truly, 

William L. Putnam. 
Prof. Henry Carmichael, 

Brunswick, Maine. 

X 20. Do you know whether or not the " draft of the agree- 
ment " sent in that letter, was subsequently modified and re- 
written before execution? 

Ans. I do not. 



DANIEL BROOKS. G9 



X 21. Do you know what agreement, if any, was subse- 
quently entered into by the parties, growing out of this draft ? 

Ans. I think it was substantially the same agreement 
enclosed to Prof. Carmichael in the letter of June 22d. 

X 22. By " substantially," what do you mean ? 

Ans. I mean that the agreement, as a whole, was executed 
as sent. 

X 23. Do you mean that there were no modifications, or 
changes, made in the first draft ? 

Ans. No, I do not. There might have been some modifica- 
tions. 

X 24. Are you willing to swear, that in the year 1882, and 
subsequent to June 22d, of that year, no other letter or enclosure 
was sent from Mr. Putnam's office by mail to Prof. Carmichael, 
than the one mentioned by you, of July 27, 1882 ? 

Ans. I am not ; for Prof. Carmichael and Mr. Putnam had 
personal correspondence that I had nothing whatever to do with. 

X 25. If your previous testimony is to the effect that there 
was no other such correspondence, would you wish to modify 
it? 

Ans. I think I modified it in my answer. I intended to do 
so. 

X 26. In answer to Int. 13, you in substance state that 
there were no other communications in writing, " sent by mail 
from Mr. Putnam's office to Prof. Carmichael, at Brunswick, in 
the year 1882," relating to this matter, except the letters of 
June 22d and of July 27th, referred to in your previous testimony. 
Are you willing that that answer shall stand, as your testimony, 
under oath without modification ? 

Ans. I have not searched the files for any correspondence. 
The letter-book shows only these two letters. 

X 27. Because you find no copies of any letters, in the year 
1882, from Mr. Putnam's office to Prof. Carmichael, except the 
two above mentioned, are you willing to swear, as, in sub- 



70 DANIEL BROOKS. 



stance, I understand you to do in answer to the 13th Int., that 
there was no other communication sent by mail from Mr. Put- 
nam's office to Prof. Carmichael in that year? 

Ans. I am — with the same qualification as in my previous 
answer — that I have not searched the file, but only examined 
the letter-book. 

X 28. Are you willing to swear, that on the 14th day of 
July, 1882, an enclosure was not sent by mail from Mr. Put- 
nam's office to Prof. Carmichael, " relating to this matter ?" 

Ans. I am not — but if there was, the letter-book failed to 
show it. 

X 29. If there was a correspondence between Mr. Putnam 
and Prof. Carmichael in this year 1882, with which you had 
nothing to do, as you have previously stated, have you any 
knowledge of the number of communications or enclosures 
sent by Mr. Putnam to Prof. Carmichael, in that year, not ap- 
pearing upon your letter-book ? 

Ans. I have not, except in this wise : that after an agree- 
ment was executed by all the parties, a duplicate, if there was 
one, might have been enclosed to Prof. Carmichael, and the 
fact of its having so been inclosed been endorsed upon the 
back of the draft, with the date of the sending. 

X 30. When and where was that agreement executed by 
the parties ? 

Ans. I have no knowledge or recollection. 

Be-direct Examination by Mr. Lange. 

E. D. 31. In answer to X Int. 26, you say as follows : 
" I have not searched the files for any correspondence. The 
letter-book shows only these two letters." Will you please 
state the custom in vogue at the office of William L. Putnam, 
in the year 1882, as to retaining by press-copying in letter- 
book, copies of letters mailed from said office ? 



DANIEL BROOKS. 71 



Ans. It is the custom for all letters to go through the let- 
ter-book — or to have press-copies taken, or a draft of the let- 
ter put in the file to which it relates. 

E. D. 32. This custom is true, whether or not letters are 
sent from Mr. Putnam's office, with or without your aid or 
knowledge, as well as during any absence on your part, from 
said office, is it not? 

Ans. It is, invariably. 

E. D. 33. Have you with you the file from the office of 
Win. L. Putnam, containing papers, or relating to papers or 
matters of transaction between Wm. L. Putnam, Esq., and Prof. 
Carmichael ? 

Ans. I have the file which contains all the papers, within 
my knowledge, between the Fibre Ware Company and Prof. 
Henry Carmichael. 

E. D. 34. Have you a copy of the original contract between 
the parties mentioned in your last answer, which was dated 
July 1, 1882 ? 

Ans. I have. 

E. D. 35. Is it contained in said file ? 

Ans. It is. 

E. D. 36. Will you read the endorsements to be found upon 
said copy of original contract ? 

Ans. I will. They are as follows : 

" Copy 

Draft of contract, Fibre Ware Co., with Prof. Henry Carmi- 
chael, July 1, 1882. 

Duplicate sent Carmichael June 22, 1882. 

See Letter-Book. 

Eec'd three hundred shares of Fibre Ware as per within con- 
tract. 

(Sg'd,) Henry Carmichael. 

July 13, 1882. 

July 14, '82. Original sent C. D. B." 

E. D. 37. In whose handwriting are the words, " July 14, 



72 DANIEL BEOOKS. 



82. Original sent C. D. B." as referred to in your last answer ? 
and state if you know who is meant by the letters " C. D. B." 

Ans. The handwriting is that of Mr. Putnam. I have no 
doubt the letters C. D. B. mean Charles D. Brown, of Portland. 

B. D. 38. In giving your last answer but one, you stated 
that you wished to make an explanation off the record, about 
some dates, relating, as I understood you, to the endorsements 
upon the copy of the original contract. If you desire, will you 
please now make any explanation that you may wish ? 

Ans. It was this : The contract when first drawn was 
called " Draft of contract." It was in this condition when the 
endorsement, "Duplicate sent Carmichael June 22, 1882," was 
made. When the contract was completed and executed, this 
draft was completed as a " copy," and the word " Draft " 
stricken out, and the word copy substituted, as shown on the 
copy of contract, that I now hold, and the date "July 1, 
1882," added. 

B. D. 39. Please examine the file and contents, now in 
your possession, and relating to matters between the Fibre 
Ware Company and Henry Carmichael, as you have testified, 
and state whether it contains any letters or memoranda of any 
sort which show or indicate that any communications were sent 
to Prof. Henry Carmichael by mail in the year 1882, other than 
the two communications referred to by you in your previous 
testimony. 

Ans. I have examined, and the papers do not show any 
other than I have stated. 



Be- Gross-Examination. 

R X 40. When you say in answer to Int. 36, that you find 
a copy of the agreement of July 1, 1882, do you mean that you 
find a clean copy of the contract in the order and form in 



DANIEL BROOKS. 73 



which it was finally executed ; or do you find the draft of the 
agreement sent June 22, 1882, with numerous erasures, inter- 
lineations and additions, made on the margin and elsewhere 
throughout said contract — some in your handwriting, and some 
in the handwriting of Mr. Putnam ? 

Ans. I do not find a clean copy, as I should hope the orig- 
inal was executed ; but I find what was a draft of June 22d 
interlined, erased, written on the margins in my handwriting 
and in the handwriting of Mr. Putman — a copy sufficient for 
the use of the office, from which I could make a copy of the 
original paper, as executed July 1, 1882. 

E. X 41. You say in your last ans wer : " as executed July 
1, 1882." Is there not a memorandum on the outer wrapper of 
that file, in Mr. Putnam's handwriting, which says : " July 14, 
'82. Closed" ? 

Ans. There is such memorandum. 

R X 42. What does that mean ? 

Ans. I should say that the papers were passed that day ; 
but executed as of July 1, 1882. 

E. X 43. I understand you to state in your answer to Int. 
32 that it is the invariable custom in Mr. Putnam's office for 
all letters to go through the letter book, or a draft of the letter 
to be put in the file to which it relates. Are you willing to 
swear that that custom is invariable, and that communications 
are not sent by Mr. Putnam from his office by mail, no copies 
or drafts of which are retained in Mr. Putnam's office ? 

Ans. It is the invariable practice. Mr. Putnam may send 
some note that he does not consider of enough importance to 
put through the letter-press. 

E. X 44. Is it not true that enclosures may be sent from 
your office by mail, not shown on the letter-book or your files ? 

Ans. It may be true ; but if so they are enclosures by Mr. 
Putnam himself. 

E. X 45. I show you the commencement and end of a 
10— P. O. 



74 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



communication purporting to be made by William L. Putnam, 
and addressed to Prof. Henry Carmichael, and bearing date July 
14, 1882, and would ask you whether or not you recognize 
the parts shown you as in the handwriting of Mr. Putnam; 
and whether or not you are satisfied, on seeing it, that a com- 
munication was sent by Mr. Putnam to Prof. Carmichael, on 
that date, which is not shown either by your letter-book or by 
your file of papers ? 

Ans. I am satisfied of the handwriting, and that it was 
either sent to Prof. Carmichael, or was given him at the office ; 
and it is not shown on our letter-book, and on no paper in 
the file. 

K. X 46. Have you any knowledge as to the whereabouts 
of Prof. Carmichael, on the 14th day of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I have no knowledge or recollection, at this date. 

E. X 47. Was he in Portland on that date ? 

Ans. I can't say. 

DANIEL BEOOKS. 



June 2, 1886, 12.30 p. m. 

Joseph W. Libby, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by James H. Lange, Esq., of 
Counsel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Joseph W. Libby ;. 54 years ; Old Orchard ; carpen- 
ter. 

2. Where were you employed in the summer of 1882 ? 
Ans. At Waterville, by Mr. Joseph G. Bodge. 

3. At what works, or factory, if either ? 



JOSEPH W. L T .BBY. 75 



Ans. At the works of the Fibre "Ware Company. 

4. How long did you continue in such employment? 
Ans. Until the first day of June, 1882. 

5. What was the nature of your employment ? 

Ans. I was at work on wood-work in fitting up machinery 
for the mill. 

6. After you left the employment of Mr. Bodge, at the 
Fibre Ware Company, Waterville, Me., on June 1, 1882, did 
you remain at Waterville ? 

Ans. I did not. 

7. Where did you go, and on what day ? 

Ans. I left Waterville the 2d day of June, and went to 
Biddeford, where I was then living. 

8. What were your relations with Mr. Joseph G. Bodge, 
during your employment under him, which employment ceased 
June 1, 1882 ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge used to talk with me frequently about the 
work, and in regard to improving the machinery and ware. 

9. About how often were you brought in contact with him 
prior to June 1, 1882, the time your employment ceased ? 

Ans. Every day. 

10. How often, approximately speaking, did he converse 
with you in regard to improving the machinery and ware ? 

Ans. I can't say as to the frequency of the times, as he 
frequently had to be absent from the mill a great deal in fit- 
ting the machinery — at times, for several days, he would be 
at the machine shop for most of the time. 

11. Did he converse with you at other places than at the 
mill, about improving the machinery and ware ? 

Ans. He did. 

12. At what other places, and under what circumstances ? 
Ans. In going from and to the mill, and at our boarding- 
house. 

13. Do I understand, that during your employment which 



76 JOSEPH W. LIBBT. 



ceased June 1, 1882, you and Mr. Joseph G, Bodge lived at the 
same boarding-house? 

Ans. We did. 

13. What machinery was it that he conversed with you 
about, during this period, or a part thereof ? 

Ans. The machinery used in the mill for making basins and 
other ware. 

15. Did he converse with you about machines for making 
pails from pulp ? 

Ans. He did, very frequently. 

16. Whose machine or machines ? 

Ans. He said that he was confident that he could make a 
machine to make pails. 

\_Counsel for Carmichacl moves that the answer be stricken 
out as not responsive.~\ 

17. Did he speak to you of a machine or machines for 
making pails from pulp, as constructed by other parties ? And 
if yea, what party or parties? 

Ans. He spoke of the machines and process then used at 
Great Falls, in North Gorham, Me. 

[Adjourned here to 2 p. m. same day.] 



2 P. M. 

[Met pursuant to adjournment.] 

18. Whose or what machines do you refer to as being at 
Great Falls, Gorham, Me. ? 

Ans. Chase machine. 

19. What did he say to you about such machine, with re- 
gard to making pails ? 

Ans. He said that they could never make a good pail by 
that process. 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY, 77 



20. Please describe the process to which you refer, as you 
understood it from your conversation with Mr. Bodge, prior to 
June 1, 1882. 

Ans. As I understood it, the stock was put into a former, 
and then a rubber bag introduced with a valve in the bottom, 
which took away a part of the water in forming the pail ; and 
after the pail was formed, it was taken from the former and 
placed upon another ; then a rubber bag placed on the inside 
and the pail was pressed from the inside by hyraulic pressure. 

21. What reasons, if any, did Mr. Bodge give to you in 
support of his statement that "they could never make a good 
pail by that process " ? 

Ans. For the reason that pressing from the inside pressed 
the fibres apart, and didn't leave them of sufficient strength. 

22. Did Mr. Bodge describe to you during your said employ- 
ment, and prior to June 1, 1882, how he could overcome this 
difficulty ? And if yea, state what he said. 

[ Counsel for Carmickael objects, if the matter called for by 
this interrogatory relates to the Bodge Patent, as inconsistent 
with and contradictory to his preliminary statement made in 
these Interference proceedings^ 

Ans. He did ; and said that the only proper way to over- 
come that difficulty was to press from the outside by a rubber 
bag. 

23. Did he state what pressure could be used ? 
[Same objection^ 

Ans. He said it required a direct pressure upon every part 
alike ; and he thought it could be done with hydraulic pressure. 

24. Upon every part of what alike ? 

Ans. Upon every part of the pail — that is, the outside of 
the pail — direct pressure. 

25. Against what was the hydraulic pressure to be ex- 
erted ? 

[Objected to — leading, and for the reason before stated.] 



78 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



Ans. Against a rubber bag, or diaphragm. 

26. During these conversations while you were employed 
at Waterville, and before you left such employment, June 1, 
1882, did Mr. Bodge describe to you how he intended to carry 
out these ideas ? 

[/Same objection.'] 
Ans. He did not. 

27. Did he describe to you the construction or formation 
of any machine by which these ideas might be carried into 
effect ? 

[Same objection.'] 
Ans. He did not. 

28. Did he state to you anything further than in sub- 
stance what you have previously stated in your examination ? 

[/Same objection.] 
Ans. He did not. 

29. What, if anything, brought about these conversations 
between you and Mr. Bodge, relating to his idea as to the 
proper method or way of making pails ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. In our conversations in regard to the Chase method, 
which he spoke of very frequently, he said the only proper 
way to make pails or hollow ware of any kind, would be to 
press from the outside ; and the only way that could be done, 
according to his idea, was by rubber and hydraulic pressure. 

30. After you left Waterville, June 2, 1882, when next did 
you see Mr. Joseph G. Bodge ? 

Ans. The 1st of January, 1883. 

31. While you were employed under Mr. Bodge, prior to 
June 1, 1882, did he then have any machine constructed to 
make pails ? And if yea, what sort of a machine was it ? 

Ans. He had a small machine constructed for making pails 
in miniature, to be used by suction. 

32. Of what material or materials was said machine made ? 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 79 



Ans. Made of tin and wire. 

33. Who made it ? 

Ans. I can't recollect the man's name. It was made at a 
tin shop at Waterville. 

34. Do you know when it was made ? And if so, give the 
date ? 

Ans. He had it commenced some time in April, 1882 — I 
can't give the exact date. It was some time before he got it 
completed, as the man was very busy on other work. 

35. About when do you think it was completed ? 

Ans. I think sometime between the 1st and middle of May. 

36. If you can, please describe the general construction and 
operation of this small tin machine — naming its parts. 

Ans. It was constructed with a cylinder, with a former in- 
side of perforated tin. The stock, or pulp, was put into the 
cylinder and connected with a pump to suck out the water and 
form the pulp upon the former. 

37. Have you named all its parts ? 

Ans. I can't say that I have — it has been so long since I 
saw it. 

38. After a pail was formed on the former by suction, as 
you have stated, what if anything was the next step before the 
pail was removed from the machine ? 

Ans. I think there was a die that came down upon the 
outside of the pail to press the pail. 

39. Were any pails made upon this machine prior to June 
1, 1882, when you left the Fibre Ware Company at Waterville ? 

Ans. They were. 

40. Were any of said pails " indurated," or treated by the 
indurating process ? 

Ans. I think not, while I was there. 

41. Do you know what has become of this tin machine to 
which you refer ? 



SO JOSEPH W. LIEUT. 



Ans. It was there in the mill while I was there in 1883, 
but I don't know what become of it afterward. 

[Direct Examination closed.] 

Cross-Examination. 

X 42. How long had you worked at the mill of the Fibre 
Ware Company in Waterville, at the time you left June 1, 
1882 ? 

Ans. From March 7th to June 1, 1882. 

X 43. How did you happen to go to work there ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge sent for me to go. 

X 44. What previous acquaintance had you had with Mr. 
Bodge ? 

Ans. I had been acquainted with him for several years. 

X 45. For how many, and where ? 

Ans. Four or five years before that, at his home, and at 
mine. 

X 46. Where was your home and his ? 

Ans. Mine in Biddeford, Maine ; his in Gorham, Maine. 

X 47. Are you any relation or connection by marriage of 
Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. Connection by marriage. My wife and his wife are 
sisters. 

X 48. What has been your regular business since you left 
Waterville, June 1, 1882 ? 

Ans. Carpenter work. 

X 49. Where have you since worked ? 

Ans. At Old Orchard, Maine — except from 1st January, 
1883, to June, 1883, I worked for Mr. Bodge, at Waterville. 

X 50. What knowledge had you of the Chase Pail ma- 
chine, to which you have referred in your previous testimony, 
up to Junel, 1882? 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 81 



Ans. No knowledge, except as described to me by Mr. 
Bodge. 

X 51. Is your recollection of Mr. Bodge's description to 
you, of that machine, full and distinct ? 

Ans. It is. 

X 52. In what manner did he describe to you that the 
hydraulic pressure was applied to the pail made in the Chase 
machine, referred to in the latter part of your answer to the 
20th interrogatory ? 

Ans. It was applied by the rubber bag on the inside of the 
pail. 

X 53. In your answer to the 20th Int. you state that " a 
rubber bag was introduced with a valve in the bottom, which 
took away a part of the water in forming the pail, and after 
the pail was formed, it was taken from that former and placed 
upon another; then a rubber bag placed on the inside," &c. 
Will you state how the valve was operated from the bottom of 
the rubber bag, and what function the rubber bag performed 
in the two parts of the process, as described to you by Mr. 
Bodge ? 

Ans. I didn't understand that there was any valve in the 
rubber bag used in the last operation — only in the first operation 
in forming the pail. 

X 54. What do you mean by the expression, " only in the 
first operation in forming the pail," in your last answer ? 

Ans. I mean he described to me, that there was a valve 
in the the bottom of the rubber bag used in forming the pail. 

X 55. Then, as Mr. Bodge described the operation of the 
Chase machine to you, it involved the use of a rubber bag, with 
a valve in the bottom of it, and another rubber bag, without a 
valve, in the finishing of it. Am I correct ? 

Ans. I don't think he said whether there was a valve in 
the bag for finishing the pail, or not. I don't recollect that he 
did. 

11— P. o. 



82 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



X 56. What do you mean then by your answer to the 53d 
Int. when you say : " I didn't understand that there was any 
valve in the rubber bag used in the last operation — only in 
the first operation in forming the pail" ? 

Ans. I meant that he described to me that there was a 
valve in the bag in the first operation ; but I don't know that 
he said that there was any in the other. 

X 57. In your answer to the 14th Int. you speak of ma- 
chinery used in the mill for making basins and other ware. 
What other ware, besides basins, was being made in the mill 
from March 7, to June 1, 1882, while you worked there ? 

Ans. The basins were the only ware made there at that 
time. 

X 58. How frequently have you seen Joseph G-. Bodge since 
January 1, 1883, up to the present time? 

Ans. From January 1, 1883, until June 1, 1883, I worked 
in the mill at Waterville with him. Since that time I have 
seen him only occasionally — I can't tell how many times. 

X 59. During the time you worked in the mill in 1883, — 
from January to June — was Mr. Bodge at work on the pail 
machine, for which he subsequently obtained a patent ? 

Ans. He was. 

X 60. Did he or not, during that time, frequently talk with 
you about it ? 

Ans. He did. 

X 61. And did he, during this time, describe to you the 
difference between his machine and the Chase machine, in their 
operations ? 

Ans. He did not. 

X 62. Was any reference made by him to the Chase ma- 
chine, at any time, while you worked in the mill during the 
year 1883, in any conversation with you ? 

Ans. He spoke of what they were doing up there very fre- 



JOSEPH W. LTBBY. 83 



quently — how they were getting along — and that their business 
would prove a failure. 

X 63. Who do you mean by they, in your last answer ? 

Arts. The company that was then making pails at G-orham — 
Great Falls. 

X 64 Have you ever seen the Bodge machine — the subject 
of this Interference — in operation, making pails; and if so, will 
you state the difference, in the method of operation, between 
the Bodge machine and the Chase machine, which was described 
to you by Mr. Bodge, as you have previously testified ? 

[ Objected to — as not referri ig to matters brought out in the 
direct examination, and as calling for expert testimony from, the 
vritAes-.'] 

Ans. I have seen the machine — helped set the machine up, 
and helped use the machine nearly every time it was used while 
I was at the mill — helped operate it, might be a better expression. 
The difference was in the method of introducing the stock, and 
being pressed from the outside instead of the inside, as by the 
Chase machine. 

X 65. In your answer, you say you " helped set the machine 
up and helped use the machine nearly every time it was used 
while I was at the mill." When was this that you helped set 
the machine up, and how many times was it used while you 
were at the mill, during the time referred to ? 

[ Objected to — not referring io matters inquired of in the direct 
examination.^ 

Ans. I can't give you the date when the machine was set 
up — it was during the time I was at the mill, between January 
and June, 1883. I can't tell the number of times it was used ; 
but quite a number of times — different times. 

X 66. When did you first know that you were wanted as a 
witness for Mr. Bodge, in this Interference case ? 

Ans, Some time in April — I can't recollect the date exactly. 
I think it was in April. 



84 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



X 67. Who told you that you would be wanted as a 
witness ? 

Ans. It was Mr. Bates. He came to my house. 

X 68. Was that the first intimation that you had had ? 

Ans. I had had an intimation from Mr. Bodge that there 
was to be a trial, and that I should, probably, be wanted as a 
witness ? 

X 69. Did Mr. Bodge state to you on what matters he 
wished you to testify ? 

Ans. No particular matters — only to testify to what I was 
knowing to. 

X 70. Nothing said to you by him as to what matters you 
were knowing to ? 

Ans. I think not. 

X 71. Are you positive on this point? 

Ans. I think I am. 

X 72. When did you first disclose the alleged conversations 
you had with Mr. Bodge in the spring of 1882, as stated by 
you in your answers to Ints. 22 to 29, inclusive ? 

Ans. I can't say. I have talked it over with friends. 

X 73. When did you first talk it over with friends? 

Ans. After I returned from Waterville in June, 1882. 

X 74. How early, after June 1, 1882 ? 

Ans. I talked it over with my family after I returned from 
Waterville ; told them what he was trying to do, and what he 
proposed to do. 

X 75. What did you tell them he was trying to do, and 
proposed to do ? 

Ans. That he was trying to make a machine, or get up a 
machine for making pails. 

X 76. When did you first disclose to any one the words of 
the conversation you allege you had with him in 1882, as 
stated in your answer to the 29th Int., to the effect that " the 
only proper way to make pails, or hollow ware of any kind, 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 85 



would be to press from the outside ; and the only way that 
could be done, according to his idea, was by rubber and hy- 
draulic pressure " ? 

Ans. I think I stated that to my family at the time I re- 
turned from Waterville. 

X 77. What makes you think you stated that ? 

Ans. Because I talked the matter over with them, and they 
wished to know about it. 

X78. You mean by that that your family inquired of you 
about the matter ? 

Ans. I mean that they made inquiries in the course of con- 
versation. 

X 79. What inquiries ? 

Ans. As to how he proposed to make his pails. 

X80. At that time, and for a long period subsequent there- 
to, were pails any part of the regular business of the Fibre 
Ware Company ? 

[ Objected to — as referring to matters not inquired of in the 
direct examination."] 

Ans- They were not. 

X 81. Since the early part of the summer of 1882, when 
you say you had this talk with your family, up to the time 
that you say that Mr. Bodge intimated to you this spring that 
you would be wanted as a witness, had you had any occasion 
to recall the particulars of any conversation you had had with 
Mr. Bodge as to his ideas about pail machines, made at a time 
when there was nothing to indicate that the matter was of any 
special importance, or that it was important for you to remem- 
ber it? 

Ans. I had considerable to recall it to my mind, in the winter 
and spring of 1883 — as Mr. Bodge talked of very little else 
while he wasn't at work ; and also I had considerable talk with 
the hands in the shop ; and I talked about it whenever I have 
seen any one that knew anything about the business. 



86 JOSEPH W. LjBBY. 



X 82. What do you mean, in your foregoing answer, that 
you talked about, and Mr. Bodge talked about, whenever you 
got a chance ? 

Ans. About pail machines, and making of pails. 

[Adjourned to June 3, 1886, 9:30 a. m.] 



June 3, 1886. 
[Met pursuant to adjournment.] 

[Witness, on coming in this morning, wishes to make a cor- 
rection in his foregoing testimony, as follows, and says :] 

With regard to the operation of the Chase Machine, the 
pail was taken from one form and placed inside of another, 
instead of on another form. 

The other item is in regard to the date or time that I first 
knew that I was to be a witness in this case. While I stated 
that I thought it was in April, I find that it was the 30th day 
of March. 

X 83. With whom have you been talking about this mat- 
ter since the last adjournment ? 

Ans. No one but Mr. Lange. 

X 84 Have you had any talk with Mr. S. W. Bates ? 

Ans. Not any. 

X 85. Is he the Mr. Bates referred to in your previous 
testimony, as the one that came to your house and talked with 
you about being a witness ? 

Ans. He is. 

X 86. The date of which you now fix as March 30, 1886 ? 

Ans. Yes. 

X 87. Had you, prior to March 30, 1886, had any talk with 
Mr. Bates, as to what matters you could testify to in this case ? 

Ans. No sir. 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 87 



X 88. What conversation did Mr. Bates have with you on 
March 30, 1886 ? 

Ans. He wished me to state what facts I knew in regard 
to the invention of Mr. Bodge of the pail machine. 

X 89. How long was your interview at that time, and 
where was it? 

Ans. About an hour, I should think, at my house at Old 
Orchard. 

X 90. At the time of your alleged conversation with Mr. 
Bodge, in the spring of 1882, had you had any previous ac- 
quaintance with pulp machinery, or machinery for making pulp 
pails ? 

Ans. I had not. 

X 91. What proportion of the year had you earned your 
living at the trade of house carpenter, during the years of your 
active life ? 

Ans. From six to eight months. 

X 92. Working in the city, or country ? 

Ans. City. 

X 92M. Where, and how long ? 

Ans. I lived in Biddeford, Me., for about 15 years. 

X 93. In answer to previous inquiries from counsel for Mr. 
Bodge, you have stated that in the spring of 1882, prior to 
June 1st of that year, you had conversations with Mr. Joseph 
G. Bodge, in which he described to you how he could manu- 
facture pails and overcome the difficulties of the Chase ma- 
chine, by pressing from the outside by a rubber bag with hy- 
draulic pressure upon every part of the pail alike, and that he 
made these remarks to you in connection with a description of 
the Chase machine which you have previously testified to. 
After the lapse of four years from the time of such alleged con- 
versation, do you claim to be able to repeat the language used 
by Mr. Bodge to you ? 



88 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



Ans. I do — for the reason that we talked so much about it 
that it fixed it upon my memory. 

X 94. As you say in reply to Int. 81 that in the winter and 
spring of 1883, " Mr. Bodge talked of very little else while he 
wasn't at work, and you also had considerable talk " with the 
hands in the shop, is it not probable that with this lapse of 
time you have confused conversations on the same subject, as 
to the time in which they may have taken place ? 

Ans. No sir, I remember distinctly when Mr. Bodge first 
spoke of making a machine for pails. He said the company 
didn't wish him to experiment on pails. They had had all the 
experimenting they wished for ; and he proposed to commence 
on his own account and did so with the tin machine. 

X 95. Did Mr. Bodge in that conversation in the Spring of 
1882, use the words, "rubber bag " or " rubber diaphram " ? 

Ans. I don't think he called it "rubber bag"; but he pro- 
posed to use rubber in some form, after trying the tin machine. 

X 96. Why then have you repeatedly said that Mr. Bodge 
said that a rubber bag was the only proper way, as in answer 
to Int. 22 ? 

Ans. As merely a matter of speech, as that was the form in 
which it was used in the Chase machine, and as he subsequently 
used it. 

X 97. What do you mean by the words " as merely a mat- 
ter of speech ? " 

Ans. Well, by hearing him speak of their method of using 
a rubber bag upon the inside. I would naturally infer that it 
would require a rubber bag upon the outside. 

X 98. Do you mean to say, that in your previous testimony 
where you pretended to give the words of Mr. Bodge in a con- 
versation with you, you have been giving us your inferences, 
which you think naturally would flow from a description of 
another machine, as indicated in your last answer ? 

Ans. I think I stated in my previous testimony, that Mr. 



JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 89 



Bodge thought the only proper way to make pails was by the 
use of rubber and hydraulic pressure — the parallel pressure 
upon every part. 

X 99. Did you not say in answer to Int. 22, that Mr. Bodge 
said : " The only proper way to overcome that difficulty was 
to press from the outside by a rubber bag ; and have you not 
said in answer to X Int. 93, that you claimed to be able to re- 
peat the language used by Mr. Bodge to you ? 

Ans. I have used the word "rubber bag" quite frequently 
in this examination, ard I did state that I could repeat the 
conversation had with Mr. Bodge at the time he proposed 
making pails. 

X 100. Where did you get the word diaphragm that you 
have used in your testimony ? 

A as. Mr. Bodge used a straight piece of rubber in his first 
attempt with rubber, and it has been called a rubber diaphragm. 

X 101. When was that first attempt? 

Ans. I can't tell when the first attempt was made ; but he 
had the straight rubber, or rubber diaphragm, and used it after 
I went to Waterville in January, 1883. 

X 102. When you have been speaking, therefore, of a first 
attempt in your answer to the 100th Int., have you been speak- 
ing of a matter within your personal knowledge, or from mere 
hearsay ? 

Ans. By hearsay, of the first attempt. I saw the same used 
in January, 1883. 

X 103. What sort of rubber was it you saw in January, 
1883, the time you first saw the attempt to use it? 

Ans. A sheet of plain rubber, called dental rubber. 

X 104. What do you mean by your answer to Int. 26, that 
in the conversations you had with Mr. Bodge, at Waterville, 
prior to June 1, 1882, he did not describe to you how he in- 
tended to carry out his ideas as to a pail machine ? 

A.711. I meant that he did not describe the method in which 
1 2— P. O. 



90 JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



it could be used. He hadn't formed any definite idea, ac that 
time, oi the form of the machine to be used. 

X 105. Do you mean that the general method of using a 
rubber diaphragm with hydraulic pressure from the outside, had 
not taken shape in his mind, for the purpose of forming pails 
from pulp ? 

Ans. I can't say what had taken shape in his mind. He 
didn't describe any manner of using it at that time — any form 
of machine, I mean. 

X 106. In the words used by me in the 105th Int., " taken 
shape in his mind," I mean so far as made known to you. Will 
you answer the inquiry, with this explanation ? 

[JT105 repeated.] 

Ans. My meaning was that he didn't explain the form of 
any machine for that purpose. 

X 107. Do you mean that he explained the process, but 
did not explain the merely working parts ? 

A/is. He did not explain any process, but said he thought 
that was the only proper way — the only way in which it could 
be done, to make a perfect pail. 

X 108. In whatever he stated to you then, you are sure 
that he did not explain any process, are you ? 

Ans. He did not explain any form of machine, but did say 
it could be done by rubber and hydraulic pressure from the 
outside. 

X 109. What do you mean by the words, " He did not ex- 
plain any process," in your answer to the 107th Int.? 

Ans. Any manner of using the rubber, other than by ap- 
plying it upon the outside, and by using hydraulic pressure. 

X 110. Will you examine the machine marked Bodge Ex- 
hibit No. 2, and state whether or not you ever saw said machine 
before. And if so, when and where ? 

[ Objected to — not referring to matters inquired of in direct 
examination.] 



ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 91 



Ans. I saw that machine in the mill in Waterv : lle. w. 1883. 

X 111. Was the machine in use pt that time? 

Ans. It was not. 

X 112. Where in the mill was it? 

Ans. It was in the loft, over the sandpapering room. 

X 113. Did you ever see it in use ? 

Ans. I have not. 

Be-direct Examination by Ma. Langs. 

E. D. 114. With regard to the amendment or correction of 
your testimony as embodied in your statement made this morning 
before the further cross-examination was proceeded with, and so 
far as said statement relates to the Chase machine, in taking the 
pail from one form and placing it inside of another, will you 
please state whether, during your cross-examination of yester- 
day, you spoke of such correction while you were ■ on the 
stand ? 

Ans. While Mr. Libby was dictating Int. 53, and quoting 

from my answer to Int. 20, when he got to the word " upon," 

I suggested it should be " inside," but this fact does not appear 

in the record. 

JOSEPH W. LIBBY. 



June 3, 1886. 

Elbridge S. Bodge, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by James H. Lange, Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Elbridge S. Bodge ; 45 years ; Gorham, Me. ; Car- 
peoier. 



92 ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 



2. Where are you now employed ? 

Ans. At Sebago Wood Board Mills at South Windham, Me. 

3. What is the nature of your employment, and state your 
general duties ? 

Ans. I have charge of the repairs and buildings — wood- 
work. 

4. How long have you been employed at said mills ? 
Ans. It will be 11 years, I think, in September next. 

5. Where did you reside in the month of July, 1882 ? 
Ans. In Windham, Maine. 

6. Did you meet Joseph Gk Bodge, one of the parties to this 
Interference, at any time or times, in the month of July, 1882 ; 
and if so, where ? 

Ans. I met Joseph G. Bodge on the 3d day of July, 1882, 
which was Monday, at South Windham, Me. 

7. Did you have conversation with him on that day ? 
Ans. I did. 

8. On said day did he speak to you about any ideas or in- 
vention of his own ? 

Ans. He did. 

9. What was the nature of the ideas or invention, about 
which he spoke to you ? 

Ans. He was giving me his ideas of a pail machine, which 
he claimed to be of his own ideas of forming hollow ware and 
pails especially. 

10. Will you please state fully what he disclosed to you 
concerning machines for making hollow ware and especially 
pails ? 

Ans. He stated to me that he was experimenting with a 
machine, that he was confident would be a perfect success. He 
was explaining to me, as nearly as he could, Chase's process of 
pressing from the inside. He said he had experimented in 
every way possible that he could think of, and had come to the 
conclusion that the only way that it could be done successfully, 



ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 93 



was to apply the pressure to the outside of the pail. He also 
undertook to explain to me his idea of forming, and spoke of 
using a rubber bag. He spoke of the enormous amount of 
pressure that would be brought to bear to lay the fibre per- 
fectly. I asked him how he was going to hold such a pres- 
sure. He answered that he intended to use, or have made, an 
iron case, with sufficient strength to hold any amount of pres- 
sure which he might need or require. 

11. Did he state to you, on that occasion, how, or by what 
means, he could get the required pressure ? 

[ Objected to — not calling for statement of Mr. J. G. Bodge, 
but inferences of the witness.'] 

Ans. He did — by hydraulic. 

12. What did you understand was the intended purpose of 
the iron case, about which he spoke ? 

Ans. As nearly as I could understand, it was to inclose, as 
he called it, a perforated former for the purpose of forming 
pails. 

13. State how he intended to use the rubber bag, as you 
understood it at that time, from what he said to you ? 

Ans. As I understood it, he was to put the stock in between 
the rubber bag and what he called the perforated former, and 
apply the pressure on the outside, so that it would be a perfect 
pressure on every part of the pail at the same time. 

14. Apply the pressure on the outside of what? 
Ans. As I understood it, the rubber bag. 

15. The pressure being applied upon the outside of the rub- 
ber bag, as you have just stated, then upon what side of the 
pail to be formed would such pressure be exerted, as you then 
understood it, from what Mr. Joseph Gr. Bodge said to you ? 

Ans. As I understood it, it would be on the whole surface, 
the outside surface of the pail — a perfect pressure. 

16. Please state where, and under what circumstances, these 
conversations took place. 



94 ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 



Ans. We were on our way to Portland — or T would say, in 
other words, we were on our way to the Portland and Ogdens- 
buig depot, at South Windham — crossing the Y that leads to 
the Sebago Wood Board Company's mill, at South Windham — 
that runs from the railroad track down to the mill ; and also 
on the train from South Windham to Portland, on the 3d day 
of July, 1882. 

17. During this conversation, were any sketches of the in- 
vention made ? 

Ans. I think there was — I think he took out his peoc on 
the Y — I won't state that positively at that time — as he always 
does in the course of conversation while imparting to others his 
idea, or ideas, about any mechanical work. 

18. In view of your last answer, did he make sketches of 
the invention, in your presence, at other times? 

Ans. He has. 

19. Can you state when? 

Ans. I cannot state positively the exact dates. 

20. Without fixing an exact date, can you state, approxi- 
mately, when he made, in your presence, a sketch or sketches 
of his invention ? 

Ans. I know that he has, in my presence, in conveying his 
ideas to me about this machine, made several sketches roughly, 
to bring out fully to me his ideas of what he intended to do. 
I wouldn't attempt to give any exact date that they were 
made. 

21. In your answer to Int. 17, as to whether any sketches 
were made during this conversation that occurred on July 3, 
1882, you state : "I think there was. I think he took out 
his pencil on the Y." Can you state whether or not Mr. J. G. 
Bodge illustrated, in any manner, his invention while both of 
you were on your way to Portland ? 

An.". He spoke of laying the fibre by the manner of put- 
ting in the stock into the machine, so that the fibre would be 



ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 95 



laid just the same as it was laid on our wet machines at the 
Sebago Wood Board Mill, in a sheet of what we call wood- 
board. 

22. In view of your last answer, will you please state 
whether Mr. J. G. Bodge, while you were on your way to Port- 
land, illustrated by sketches, or marked out in your presence, 
his invention or any portion thereof ? 

Ans. It is very clear to my mind that he did. I think that 
he marked out what he called the hollow ring where he put 
the stock in, and how it would work in going round what be 
called the former. Still, I wouldn't state positively that it was 
on thai; Jay that it was done. 

23. Can you state about the length of time after July 3, 
1882, that Mr. Joseph G-. Bodge made sketches pertaining to 
his invention, in your presence ? 

Arts. I couldn't give any definite time when they were 
made. I know that they were made in my presence. 

24. What circumstances, if any, enable you to fix upon 
July 3, 1882, when this conversation occurred between you and 
Mr. Joseph G-. Bodge, and to fix upon your trip with him to 
Portland ? 

Ans. The circumstances connected with that date — I dis- 
tinctly recollect of being at our father's house Sunday, July 2, 
1882. My oldest brother and wife, myself and wife, my old- 
est sister and her husband were there at the time. My brother 
Joseph was explaining to father about his idea of a pail ma- 
chine, and the rest of us — there had been so much said — went 
out into the yard to talk between ourselves and left him talk- 
ing with father about this machine. Monday, July 3, 1882, 
we came to Portland on the train that leaves South Windham, 
I think somewhere between 8 and 9 o'clock. 

If I recollect the name rightly, we called at Mr. Harris' on 
Commercial street, and made some talk with Mr. Harris about 
the mill at Waterville — if that was the name. It think it was. 



96 ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 



I am quite sure it was. We went to Mr. Chisholm's office that 
day. He introduced me to Mr. Chisholm. We went into a 
fruit store on Exchange street ; he there purchased a small box 
of fruit ; I think he paid $1.80 for the fruit — I won't be cer- 
tain on that point. I took that box of fruit home with me on 
the last train out to South Windham, which arrived at that 
place on or about 6:30 o'clock. I sent my youngest boy with 
the box of fruit that night, to his son's house on the Gorham 
side of the river. Tuesday, July 4, 1882, I went to the house 
of his son, Charles F. Bodge, in the morning. He was sitting 
in the front door ; had on a pair of loose cloth slippers. When 
T went up to the door, he drawed up his pant legs to show me 
how badly his legs and ancles were swollen. While I was sit- 
ting on the front steps, he called to his wife to bring out the 
box of fruit which was sent to him the night before, and passed 
me some of the fruit out of the box. And by that circumstance, 
or circumstances, I remember distinctly of the day and date of 
our visit to Portland. That was the only time that my brother 
and I were in Portland together in 1882. 

25. Is Charles F. Bodge still living ? And if not, state 
when he died, if you know. 

Ans. Charles F. Bodge died Friday, July 21, 1882, at H to 

II P. M. 

26. Did Mr. Joseph G. Bodge return with you from Port- 
land to South Windham, on the afternoon of July 3, 1882, 
when you took the box of fruit to the latter place ? 

Ans. He did not. He was on his way to Waterville. 

[Adjourned to 2:30 same day.] 



[Met pursuant to adjournment.] 

27. Referring to your conversation with Mr. J. G. Bodge, 
on July 3, 1882, will you please state how you understood, 



ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 97 



from such conversation, the hydraulic pressure was to be ap- 
plied to the outside of the rubber bag. 

£ Objected to — not calling for the statement of Mr. J. G. Bodge, 
but the witness's inferences, from conversation.] 

• Ans. The way I understood from his conversation with me, 
was that the pressure was to be applied through a pipe or tube 
connected to the iron case. 



Cross-Examination by Mr. Libby. 

X 28. Are you a relative of Mr. J. Gr. Bodge ? And if so, 
what is the relationship? 

Ans. I am a brother. 

X 29. Who were the owners of the Sebago Wood Board 
Mills in which you are now employed ? 

Ans. In answer to that question, I will say, as far as I 
know, Mr. C. A. Brown, Mr. O. D. Brown, Mr. Denison, Mr. 
Daniels, William A. Eussell. Those are all the men that I 
know of that are connected with that company. 

X 30. What Mr. Denison ? 

Ans. I think Mr. E. B. Denison — I am not so much ac- 
quainted with him as I am with Mr. C. A. Brown. 

X 31. How many of the above persons you have men- 
tioned, are actively interested in the Indurated Fibre Com- 
pany, which now owns the Bodge patent for forming pails, here 
in controversy ? 

[ Objected to — calling for hearsay evidence.] 

Ans. I couldn't say that I know of any that are personally 
connected. I know that Mr. C. A. Brown, C. D. Brown, Mr. 
Chisholm, are frequently at our place on their way, as I sup- 
pose, to the Pail Mill. I couldn't say as to that — to state it as 
a fact. 

13— P. O. 



98 ELBEIDGE S. BODGE. 



X 32. Where is the pail-mill situated, which you men- 
tioned in your last answer ? 

Ans. The one I have reference to is situated at Great Falls, 
Gorham. 

X 33. Is it the mill of the Indurated Fibre Company, 
where pails are now made ? 

Ans. I don't know whether it is or not. 

X 34. Do you know where the mill of the Indurated Fibre 
Company, in which their business is carried on, is situated? 

Ans. All I know about that is that there is a pail mill at 
Great Falls. I don't know what the name of it is. 

X 35. Have you never heard what company is operating 
that mill ? 

[ Objected to — calling for hearsay. ] 

Ans. Not that I recollect of. 

X 36. Do you know whether the Bodge machine is used 
there ? 

Ans. They had a machine there the last time I was there, 
that they claimed to be the Bodge machine. 

X 37. Yet you state, do you, that you have never heard who 
was operating that mill 1 

Ans. I say that I don't know what they call the name of 
the mill. 

X 38. Will you answer Int. 37 ? 

[Question 37 repeated.'] 

Ans. I don't think I made that statement. I don't know 
— I may have. 

X 39. Have you ever heard who was operating that mill, 
with the Bodge machine in it? 

Ans. I have heard that a Mr. Keyes was running the mill 
at the present time. 

X 40. In whose employment is Mr. Keyes ? 

Ans. I couldn't tell you, sir. 



ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 99 



X 41. Do you know who owns the Bodge Patent for mak- 
ing pails, at this time ? 

Ans. I couldn't say who owns it. 

X 42. Have you never heard ? 

Ans. I may have heard — I don't recall any particular name 
at this time. 

X 43. As a brother of Joseph G-. Bodge, have not you 
known the history of this patent since he applied for it ? 

[Objected to — not opened on direct examination — irrelevant.] 

Ans. What I know about the machine, or a patent, is by 
the way of explanation, or explanations, given to me by Jo- 
seph G. Bodge. 

X 44. Did not you know of the suit in Equity, brought 
against your brother Joseph G-. Bodge, by the Fibre Ware 
Company, in 1883, to compel an assignment of that patent to 
that company, and 'of the subsequent assignment of the pat" 
ent by your brother ; and that the same is now owned by the 
Indurated Fibre Company, which succeeded to the business 
and rights of the Fibre Ware Company ? 

[ Objected to as before — and as assuming the existence of facts 
not shown by any legal evidence as existing, and inadmissible."] 

Ans. My brother told me at one time that there had been 
an injunction put on him ; he told me at one time that he had 
sold it. 

X 45. Did he tell you how much he sold it for ? 

[Objected to — as before.'] 

Ans. He might have told me, but I don't recollect the exact 
amount. 

X 46. What do you recollect about it ? 

[ Same objection.] 

Ans. I recollect about his telling me that he had sold it. 

X 47. Nothing more as to the amount or as to whom he had 
sold it ? 

[/Same objection.] 



100 ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 



Arts. He might have told me the exact amount, but I don't 
recollect it. He might have told me to whom he had sold it ; 
but I don't recall any particular names. 

X 48. Did you ever hear of the Indurated Fibre Company ? 

Ans. I have. 

X 49. What have you heard of it ? 

Ans. I don't recollect anything particularly about it ; that 
is, nothing that I could make any definite statement about. 

X 50. Do you know what its business is, or where its mill 
is located ? 

Ans. I don't know as I do. 

X 51. Did you never hear anything about these matters, 
for the last two years, while you have been in the employ of 
some of the same men who were carrying on the business of the 
Indurated Fibre Company? 

[ Objected to — not calling the witness^ attention specifically to 
any subject of inquiry, and as assuming a fact as existing that 
has not been proven — presenting a question which a witness can- 
not intelligently answer, for want of information as to the sub- 
ject inquired of] 

Ans. I am in the employ of what is known as the Sebago 
Wood Board Company. I have been in their employ nearly 
eleven years — been there almost constantly at their mill. 

X 52. How far is the Sebago Wood Board Company's mill 
from North Gorham, where pails are made — to which you have 
previously referred ? 

Ans. I should judge it was somewhere from five to six 
miles. 

X 53. Are Windham and Gorham adjoining towns ? 

Ans. The Presumpscot river runs between Windham and 
Gorham — separates the two towns. 

X 54. Where do you now live ? 

Ans. In Gorham. 



ELBEIDGE S, BODGE. 101 



X 55. And this is the same town in which the pail mill 
you have referred to, is situated ? 

Ans. It is. 

X 56. How many times did you see your brother, Joseph 
G. Bodge, in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. I saw him quite frequently in July. 

X 57. Is that the only month in which you saw him ? 

Ans. I think I saw him once or twice in June of that year 
— I couldn't say on what dates. 

X 58. From July, 1882, throughout the rest of that year, 
did you not see him ? 

Ans. I do not recollect of seeing him after the 26th day of 
July, 1882, that year ? 

X 59. Were you away from home, or out of the State after 
July, in that year ? 

Ans. I don't recollect of being away from home, or out of 
the State, that year after July. 

X 60. Where was your brother Joseph G. Bodge's home, in 
the year 1882? And where did his family reside? 

Ans. At Watervile, Maine. 

X 61. In answer to Int. 56, you say, " I saw him quite fre- 
quently in July." State, if you can, the number of times you 
saw him in that month, and the places. 

Ans. I saw him July 1, 1882, at South Windham. I was 
with him July 2, 1882, at -father's house at Canada Hill, in 
Windham — what has been called the Bodge neighborhood. I 
saw him Monday, July 3, 1882 — was in Portland with him. 
I saw him July 19, 1882, at his son's house in Gorham. I saw 
him July 20, of the same year, at the same place. I saw him 
July 21, of the same year, at his son's house. I won't say pos- 
itively that I saw him this day at his son's house, but I was 
with him at the mill yard. I saw him July 22d, 23d and 25th. 
I think he and I were together on the 26th — I won't say posi- 



102 ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 



tively as to that. I met him at his wife's father's place, and at 
his son's house, and at my home in Windham. 

X 62. When did you first learn that it was important, for 
the purposes of this case, that you should, be able to fix defi- 
nitely the 3d of July, as the day on which your brother first 
disclosed to you the nature of his invention ? 

[ Objected to — assuming knowledge on the part of witness not 
shown."] 

Arts. It was owing to circumstances connected with his 
son's sickness and the box of fruit that he sent back by me to 
his son on the 3d day of July, 1882. 

X 63. [Question 62 repeated."] 

Ans. That was not the first disclosure made to me in re- 
gard to it. 

X 64. When was the first disclosure ? 

Ans. I can't say positively as to that. It was either in June 
or the first of July, 1882. 

X 65. What difficulty have you in determining whether it 
was June or July ? 

Ans. I have no fixed dates in June. I know that we had 
had correspondence in the month of June in regard to his son's 
sickness at that time. I am quite sure that he and I met once 
or twice in the month of June — I wouldn't say positively as to 
that. 

X 66. Did you keep any diary at the time, as to these dates 
and occurrences ? 

Ans. I did not. 

X 67. When did you first learn that these dates and oc- 
currences were important for the purposes of this case ? 

Ans. I have kept perfectly still until recently, from the 
fact that I did not want to be brought here. I spoke care- 
lessly — no — I spoke about being in Portland with my brother 
on the 3d day of July. 



ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 103 



X 68. What did you mean by the words : " I spoke care- 
lessly," in the last answer ? 

Ans. I didn't intend, not ever having testified before a 
lawyer in this manner, to have anything to do with it — giving 
any testimony. 

X 69. What changed your intention ? 

Ans. Knowing these dates and the circumstances connected 
with the trip to Portland, I came in. 

X 70. Came in where ? 

Ans. Came in here. 

X 71. For what purpose and when ? 

Ans. I came in to give in my testimony as I understood the 
case. I came in yesterday. 

X 72. Who notified you when to come in, and where to 
come ? 

Ans. My brother — Joseph G-. Bodge. 

X 73. How long had you kept perfectly still, as stated in 
your answer to the 67th Int. ? 

Ans. I don't know exactly how long. 
' X 74. What did you mean by that expression : " I have 
kept perfectly still until recently " ? 

Ans. My business was such at South Windham that it 
required my attention. I did not want to leave it. 

X 75. In what way did you keep perfectly still ? 

Ans. I didn't say much of anything about it one way or 
the other. 

[Adjourned to June 4, 9:30 a. m.] 

[Examination suspended, by consent, on account of illness of 
this witness.'] 



104 ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 



June 5, 1886 : 9 a. m. 
Cross-Examination resumed by Mr. Libby. 

X 76. You say in your answer to X Tnt. 67, that you kept 
perfectly still until recently, from the fact that you did not 
want to come here and testify. When did you first learn that 
you knew of anything of importance in this case, so that your 
testimony would be wanted ? 

Ans. In that statement, " perfectly still," that I made, I 
meant that I made but very little talk with any person except 
my wife about it. I have known, for some time, in regard to 
the dates in July, that I was with my brother on certain days 
and dates during the month of July, 1882. 

X 77. Will you please answer X Int. 76, which I ask the 
Examiner to repeat ? 

L-3T Int. 76 repeated?^ 

Ans. I recollected distinctly of being in Portland with my 
brother, Joseph G. Bodge, on the 3d day of July, 1882. 

X 78. Aren't you able to understand the question put to 
you? 

Ans. I do. 

X 79. Is that the best answer you can give me to Int. 76 ? 

\_Int. 76 repeated^ 

Ans. Last Monday my brother asked me if I recollected of 
sending him a despatch a few days before his son died. He 
asked me if I would come in here with him and see Mr. J. H. 
Lange. I told him that I didn't want to come, that I wanted 
to buy a cow on that day — the mill was shut down. He told 
me, if I would ride in with him, that he would carry me to a 
place where we looked at a cow the day before. My wife 
wanted me to get a few things she needed here, in the house. 
I came in here with him, and was introduced to Mr. J. H. 
Lange. Mr. Lange asked me a question about the 3d day of 



ELBEIDGE S. BODGE. 105 



July, 1882. That night, on returning home, after I arrived, I 
was notified to come in here. 

X 80. Was that the first you knew of the nature of this 
controversy ? 

Ans. I had known about the dates of July, of being with 
my brother, from July 1, 1882, at several times during the 
month up to the 26th of July, 1882. 

X 81. If you do not understand my question, I will try to 
put it in a different form. 

[ JT Int. 80 repeated.] 

Ans. 1 have known, since the examination has been going 
on, frequently, as I have gathered it from conversations with 
my brother. 

X 82. What have you known, as to the nature of this con- 
troversy, from conversations with your brother, since this ex- 
amination commenced ? 

Ans. He has asked me, several times, if I didn't remember of 
being with him on certain days in the month of July, 1882. 

X 83. Why did he have to ask you, several times, this ques- 
tion ? 

Ans. He said he wanted to bring out the facts of this case 
just as they were ; and he knew that we were together fre- 
quently during the month of July, 1882. 

X 84. Did you finally remember the facts as he stated 
them ? 

[ Objected to — as assuming.'] 

Ans. He stated no facts to me directly. I told him that I 
knew that we were in Portland on the 3d day of July, 1882. 

X 85. When did you first learn that that fact was of any 
importance in this case ? 

Ans. I learned that from Mr. J. H. Lange. 

X 86. What did Mr. Lange say to you about it ? 

Ans. He asked me if I remembered of being in Portland 
14— P. O. 



106 ELBEIDGE S. EODGE. 



with my brother, Joseph G. Bodge, on the 3d day of July, 1882. 
I told him that I did. 

X 87. Is that all that was said ? 

Ans. There might have been something more said in regard 
to it. I couldn't state, word for word, what was said. He 
asked me that question in particular. 

X 88. I don't ask you word for word what was said. I 
asked you when you first learned that that fact was of impor- 
ance in this case ; and you said you learned it from Mr. Lange. 
I am now asking you what Mr. Lange said which first made 
known to you the importance of that fact ? 

Ans. Mr. Lange said that he wished to find out where my 
brother was on or about that time. I knew that I was with 
him on that day, the 3d day of July, 1882. 

X 89. Did he say to you why the fixing of that date was 
important in this case ? 

Ans. I don't know as he did. I won't state positively as 
to that. 

X 90. Was this the first time that anything had ever been 
said to you showing the importance of that date ? 

Ans. My brother has said to me that it was very important, 
in this case, about his whereabouts from the 1st day of July, 
1882, until the 26th day of July, 1882. 

X 91. When did he say that to you ? 

Ans. I don't recollect exactly when. 

X 92. Give me, approximately, the date, as near as you 
can. 

Ans. It has been some time since this examination com- 
menced. 

X 93. Then, it was some one day since this examination 
commenced ; but the exact day you have not clearly in your 
mind. Am I correct? 

Ans. I haven't the exact day, but some day since this exam- 
ination commenced. 



ELBKIDGE S. BODGE. 107 



X 94. What day did this examination commence, if you 
remember ? 

Arts. I don't remember, sir, what day it commenced. 

X 95. Couldn't you tell approximately ? 

Ans. It might have been last week, or the week before. 

X 96. In your answer to X Int. 79, you refer to your 
brother having asked you about a despatch you sent him a few 
days before his son died. What did you tell him you remem- 
bered about that ? 

Ans. I told him I remembered about sending him a des- 
patch. 

X 97. At the time he mentioned it to you, what did you 
remember ? 

Ans. I remember of sending him a despatch from our mill 
yard office, at South Windham, to Waterville, on the 18th day 
of July, 1882 ; but I didn't tell him that. I recollected it 
well. My wife did too. 

X 98. Why didn't you tell it to him ? 

Ans. I didn't want to be summonsed in here. I thought if 
I told him that I should be. 

X 99. What did you tell him so that you should not be 
summonsed in here ? 

Ans. I told him that I recollected of a despatch. The des- 
patch that I had reference to, at that time, in my mind, was 
sent to him by me, on the morning of July 22, 1882. 

X 100. What did you tell him about this last despatch? 

Ans. I haven't said anything about it to him, until I was 
notified to come in here ; and then I told him that I sent him 
that despatch on the 18th day of July, 1882. 

X101. By " that despatch " in your last answer, what do 
you refer to? 

Ans. I refer to the despatch sent from the office of the 
Sebago Wood Board Company's Mill, at South Windham, July 
18, 1882. 

3 



108 ELBRIDGE S. BODGE. 



X 102. How did you happen to mention this despatch to 
him, if he did not inquire about it? 

Ans. He asked me several times if I recollected of sending 
him a despatch a few days before his son died. 

X 103. And on these several occasions, what did you reply 
to him ? 

Ans. I did not make — in reference to that first despatch — 
a direct reply until after I was notified to come in here. 

X 104. What sort of a reply did you make, if you did not 
make a direct one ? 

Ans. I said I recollected sending him a despatch, and I 
immediately left for my home. 

X 105. Did you do this, on each of the several times, when 
you say he inquired about it ? 

Ans. I didn't mention, that I recollect of, directly to him of 
the first despatch sent, until after I was notified to come in here. 

X 106. At what time in the day of July 19, 1882, did you 
see your brother at his son's house in Gorham, as stated in your 
answer to the 61st interrogatory? 

Ans. My brother arrived at South Windham, on the train 
that arrives at South Windham on or about half past six in the 
afternoon. The hour was between that and dark. My wife 
was with me. My youngest sister was with me and him (my 
brother). I hung two screen-doors, one on the door next to the 
Baptist Church, in Gorham, one on the front door next to the 
street, while my brother and sister were putting up a bed in 
the parlor to move his son out of the dark bed-room, where he 
had been lying for several days. That was on the 19th day of 
July, 1882. 

X 107. Where had he come from that day, if you know ? 

Ans. I supposed that he came from Waterville. I couldn't 
say positively as to that. 

X 108. At what time in the day of July 21, 1882, did you 
see your brother at his son's house, in Gorham ? 



ELBEIDGE S. BODGE. 109 



Ans. He left South Windham, as he said, for Waterville, 
on the noon train. I was with him in the mill-yard. 

X 109. At what time in the day does that noon train reach 
Waterville ? 

Ans. I couldn't say. I don't know at what time it reaches 
Waterville. 

X 110. Do you remember whether it reaches there about 5 
o'clock in the afternoon ? 

Ans. I don't remember. I think it arrives there on or 
about 5 o'clock. 

X 111. After this lapse of time, do you claim to remember 
the language used by your brother in the conversation de- 
tailed by you as taking place on the 3d day of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I don't claim to remember, word for word, what was 
said — the exact language used. 

X 112. Do you claim to remember the substance of what 
was said in that conversation, after this lapse of time. 

Ans. The principal part of his conversation was in relation 
to his ideas of a pail machine for forming pails. 



Be-Direct Examination by Mr. Lange. 

R. D. 113. Will you please state why, or for what reason, 
you sent the telegram to your brother J. G. Bodge, on the 18th 
day of July 1882 ? 

Ans. For the reason that my sister — youngest sister — was 
with him at that time, through the last days of his sickness. 
He was failing very rapidly at that time. She sent word to 
me at the mill yard, or to the mill where I was at work, to 
send for my brother to come home. That was in the forenoon. 
I stepped into the office of the mill and sent the despatch, 
That was on the 18th day of July 1882. 



110 WILLIAM C. HINDS. 



K. D. 114. To whom do you refer, in your last answer as 
" him " — the person who was failing rapidly ? 

Ans. Charles F. Bodge, son of Joseph G. Bodge, a married 
son, of about 25 years of age. 



ELBEIDGE S. BODGE. 



June 5, 1886, 11.20 a. m. 

William C. Hinds, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed by Wilbue F. Lunt, Esq., of Counsel for 
Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. "What is your name, age, residence and occupation? 

Ans. William C. Hinds ; 36 years ; Bath, Me. ; Machinist. 

2. Where were you employed in the spring of 1882 ? 
Ans. In Waterville, at Webber & Philbrick's, as the firm 

was at that time. 

3. What was their business ? 

Ans. General repair shop. They also dealt in new ma- 
chinery. 

4. State whether or not, in the month of June, 1882, you 
did any work for Mr. J. G. Bodge, in Waterville ? 

Ans. I did. 

5. Calling your attention to Bodge Exhibit No. 2, Part [B], 
will you please state whether you did any work on the ma- 
chine of which said exhibit is a part ? 

Ans. I did. 

6. Will you please state what work you did on said ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. I made the ring — cast iron ring, that is bolted to the 
bottom plank — wood part. 



WILLIAM C. HINDS. Ill 



7. Will you please point out to the Examiner, and have 
him mark, by letter, the part of the machine which you worked 
on in the month of June, 1882 ? 

Ans. I will. 

[ Witness points out part, which the Examiner marks as fol- 
lows, viz: "Bodge Exhibit No. % — A. H. JD., Mc'r, May 28, 
1886 \_Ey] 

8. When did you finish work on the part of the machine 
referred to ? 

Ans. The 29th day of June, 1882. 

9. Did you keep, during the month of June, 1882, a daily 
record of your time as you were employed ? 

Ans. I did. 

10. Will you please state, by reference to such daily record, 
if necessary, upon what days in June, 1882, you worked on 
that part of said machine ? 

Ans. I worked part of the time on the 26th, 27th, 28th and 
29th of June, 1882. 

11. Did you understand, at that time, the purpose or func- 
tion of that part of the machine referred to? 

Ans. Not in full. I understood that it was for conveying 
the pulp through. 

12. Will you please to describe, in your own way, and 
briefly, the form of that part of the machine which you worked 
on, as stated. 

Ans. It is a cast-iron ring, with a groove on the under side, 
with small holes leading up through from the groove. 

13. Did you have any conversation with Mr. J. G. Bodge, 
previous to the time when you worked on that machine, in re- 
lation to any matters connected with the pulp business ? If so, 
state, as nearly as you can, when it was, and what he said. 

Ans. He had talked with me quite often before that time 
about getting up a pail machine. 

lint. 13 re-read to the witness.'] 



112 WILLIAM C. HINDS. 



He said that he was at work on one ; thought he would get a 
nice pail in time. 

14. State as nearly as you can when it was you had this 
conversation — how long before you worked for him the last of 
June, as you have stated ? 

Ans. I should say from four to six weeks, — perhaps longer 
than that. 



Cross-Examination oy Charles F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Carmichael. 

X 15. For whom was the work you performed on this ma- 
chine, as previously stated, done, and to whom charged ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge came to me with the job. He was there 
most of the time I was doing it — told me how to do it. The 
charge was made to the Fibre Ware Company. 

X 16. Had you ever done any work on this machine pre- 
viously ? 

Ans. No, I had not. 

X 17. Did you do no work during the months of July and 
August, up to August 28th, in your employment ? 

Ans. I did. 

X 18. The question as read to you is not the question I 
intended to put to the Examiner. The question I wished to 
ask was: Did you do no work after July 30th up to August 
28th of that year? 

Ans. I think I did. 

X 19. I understood you to say, in answer to Int. 9, that 
you kept a daily record of. your time, as you were employed. 
Is that correct ? 

Ans. I did. 

X 20. By reference to the book of such daily record pro- 
duced by you, I find no record of daily work after a date which 



WILLIAM C. HINDS. 113 



has a heading at the top of the page : " Friday, 30 " (which I 
assume to be July 30th, but which may be some month previous), 
up to August 28th. As this is a book of daily record, how 
does it happen that there is such a hiatus ? 

[ Counsel for Bodge objects to the assumption of interrogating 
counsel, that the date of Friday, 30tfA, is July 30^, instead of 
June 3vth, as the witness has stated.] 

\_Counsel for Carmichael objects to an interruption of the 
cross-examination, where counsel for Bodge interpolates upon the 
record a misstatement of this witness' testimony.'] 

[ Counsel for Bodge also objects, that counsel on the other side 
have no right to examine parts of the book not referred to in 
direct examination, and no right to cross-examine the witness on 
the contents of such other parts. .] 

Ans. ( Witness examines the book.) I find this time correct, 
or nearly so. I was out some days during the time. I worked 
from August 1st, the whole month. I worked all but the 14th 
in July. 

X 21. Will you examine the date " Friday, 30," at the head 
of page 8, of this daily record, and tell me what month that 
date refers to ; and also tell me what the next succeeding date 
is, as you have kept it, as it follows in the book ? 

Ans. The time on page 8 is Friday, June 30. The next 
date, as it follows in the book, is August 28. The time for Au- 
gust 1st, is on page 22. 

X 22. Will you please give the dates, as they follow on the 
next two pages, after August 2S ? 

[ Objected to — not proper cross-examination, as before."] 

Ans. August 29th, 30th, 31st, September 1st, September 
2d, September 4th. 

X 23. Does the year of these entries appear in the book ? 

Ans. It appears on the book. 

X 24. My question is, does the year of any of these en- 
tries appear in connection with the entries in the book ? 
15— P. o. 



114 WILLIAM C. HINDS. 



Ans. The entries in the book were made in June, July, 
August and September, 1882. 

X 25. Are you not able to answer my inquiry, whether the 
year appears in connection with any of the entries in that 
book ; and if so, will you please do so ? 

Ans. I guess not. 

[Adjourned to 2 p. m., same day.] 



2 p. M. 

X 26. Will you please examine part marked [E], of Bodge 
Exhibit No. 2, and state whether the piece of iron pipe with 
an elbow connected with one-half of the iron ring, which you 
have described as your work on this machine, was put in by 
you at the time you did the work you have described, from 
June 26 to June 29, 1882. The iron pipe I refer to is con- 
nected with the side of the ring, and the elbow turned up. 

Ans. I don't remember putting that in. I might have 
filled the hole. I didn't put the pipe in. 

X 27. Do you remember of having drilled the hole, at the 
time you put this iron ring on to the machine ? 

Ans. I can't say that I do. 

X 28. Do you know for what purpose that iron pipe was 
inserted in the ring ? 

Ans. I do not. 



Be-direct Examination by Mr. Lange. 

R D. 29. Is the memorandum-book to which you have re- 
ferred during your examination, your private property ? 
Ans. It is considered so. 
R. D. 30. Will you please state from whom you received 



W LLIAM C. HTEDS. 115 



or obtained the book originally, and the circumstances, if any, 
under which you obtained it ? 

Ans. I received the book from Mr. Webber. They were 
to give us a book for every month, but neglected to do so very 
often, and that accounts for the time being in the shape that 
it is. 

R D. 31. For what purpose were " they " to give you a 
book every month ? 

Ans. To keep an account of the number of hours labor of 
different parties during the month. 

E. D. 32. Will you refer to the book, now in your possess- 
ion, and state on what pages, if any, you find your account for 
time on work in the month of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. Entry of July 1st is on the 13th page. It runs to the 
22d page. 

E. D. 33. If you have no objections, will you hand your 
memorandum- book to the Examiner, to be introduced in evi- 
dence and used as an exhibit in this case ? 

Ans. I have no objections. 

[/Said book is introduced and marked: "Bodge Exhibit, 
< Binds Time-Booh"— A. H. B., Bh?r, June 5, 1886."] 

E. D. 34. At the time you made the ring, to which your 
attention was called in your direct examination, which is marked 
Bodge Exhibit No. 2, Part [E], what did you call it ? 

Ans. I called it a " water pail dye." 

WILLIAM C. HINDS. 



116 ASA J. LYON. 



June 7, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 
Asa J. Lyon, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say in answer to interrog- 
atories proposed to him by Wilbue F. Lunt. Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Asa J. Lyon ; 48 years ; Oakland, Me. ; Mechanic and 
Machinist. 

2. In the month of July, 1882, were you associated in bus- 
iness with others under any firm name ? and if yea, state the 
name of your firm, its place of business, and the nature of the 
business carried on there. 

Ans. I was. The firm name was Lyon, Bragg and Hubbard, 
at Oakland, Me. Iron founders, machinists, general jobbing in 
wood and iron. 

3. How long was that firm in business ? 

Ans. From September 13, 1880, to May 21, 1884 

4. Did you visit the works of the Fibre Ware Company in 
Waterville, in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. I did. 

5. When did you first visit their works ? 
Ans. The 12th day of July, 1882. 

6. What was the object of that visit, and at what time of 
the day did it occur ? 

Ans. I visited the concern out of curiosity, to see what they 
were doing, in the afternoon about 4 o'clock. 

7. How did you happen to be at Waterville on that day ; 
and how far is Waterville from your then place of business ? 

Ans. I went to Waterville on business and to have an error 
corrected that occurred on W. B. Arnold & Company's books. 
Oakland is about five miles from Waterville. 

8. What was the error referred to ? 



ASA J. LYON. 117 



Ans. Some belting that I had got there, during the month 
of June ; through a mistake, the clerk at Arnold's had charged 
the belting to Hubbard & Blake Manufacturing Company. This 
error was corrected at that time. The belting was charged to 
Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, and credited to the Hubbard & Blake 
Manufacturing Company. 

9. When you went into the factory of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, in the afternoon of July 12, 1882, will you state what 
person you first had any conversation with, if you had any, and 
describe what took place, what you saw, and what was said to 
you? 

Ans. As I entered the factory, Mr. Joseph G-. Bodge ap- 
proached me, and said he had posted notices at the door of the 
mill for no one to enter. I told him I would go out if he in- 
sisted. He asked me my name and business. After I told 
him my name and business — the firm I represented — he 
thought I was the man he wanted to see, and then took me in 
to a machine that he was to work on and explained to me what 
he was trying to accomplish. 

10. Do you see here the machine to which he took you ? 
Ans. I do. 

11. Will you please point it out to the Examiner, that he 
may make a note of it ? 

Ans. This is the machine as I saw it. 

[ Witness points out Bodge Exhibit No. 2, including the parts 
VA\IB\ [C], [Z>], [J0].] 

With the exception of the rubber diaphragm that was 
attached thereto. 

12. To what part of the machine was the rubber attached, 
and how was it applied to any other part of the machine ? 

Ans. The rubber was attached to the bottom of the wooden 
cylinder, by means of a cord that was tied around it, extend- 
ing up over the inside former. 

13. What kind of rubber did Mr. Bodge then have on the 
machine ? 



118 ASA J. LYON. 



Ans. He told me it was dental rubber. 

14. Did Mr. Bodge then make any explanations as to the 
method of operating said machine, and the purpose thereof ? 
If so, please state what he said as fully as you can. 

Ans. He said he proposed to force the stock in under the 
rubber bag, as he called it, and after there was a sufficien t 
amount of stock forced in, would shut off that pipe, and with 
a form or follower, that he had about complete, force down 
over the rubber bag, force out the water, and form the stock 
into a pail. He also told me that he proposed putting hy- 
draulic pressure on at some future time, in place of the fol- 
lower or form. 

15. Was the machine, at that time, set up in place and in 
operation ? 

Ans. It was not. 

16. Did you notice whether or not any suction pipe was 
attached to the bottom of the machine, at that time ? 

Ans. I didn't notice any. 

17. When did you next visit at the same place ? 
Ans. August 2d, of the same year. 

18. At that time, did you see the same machine, and see it 
operated ? 

Ans. I did. 

19. What was the result of the operation that you then 
witnessed ? 

Ans. At that time, Mr. Bodge succeeded in making two 
imperfect pails. 

20. Will you please to describe the operation of the ma- 
chine as you witnessed it August 2, 1882, when the two imper- 
fect pails were produced ; and also state what the imperfection s 
in the pails were ? 

Ans. He forced the stock into the machine under the 
rubber bag with a hand-pump ; after which he closed the pipe 
that connected the pump with the machine, and then proceeded 



ASA J. LYON. 119 



to force the follower down over the rubber bag, to form the 
pail. The imperfections in the pail were: they were very un- 
even in thickness and not very compact. 

21. Will you please describe the follower to which you re- 
fer in your last answer ? 

Ans. The follower was made up of soft lumber, with a head 
in the small end, two hoops on, and the inside was turned out, 
and a staff fastened to the head to handle it by. 

22. You speak of hoops. What was the shape of that part 
of the follower to which the hoops were applied ? and please 
describe the interior of it as nearly as \ou can. 

Ans. The outside of the follower was round, small on the 
end to receive the head, so that the hoops would drive down 
close. The inside was turned as near as possible to form the 
outside of the pail. 

23. Was anything placed within the main cylinder, or bar- 
rel, against which the follower in descending over the rubber 
covering the former, came in contact ? 

Ans. There was not, at this time. 

24. Will you please state how closely the exterior surface 
on the lower end of this follower fitted to the inside of the main 
cylinder, or barrel ? 

Ans. My recollections are that there might h.ive been half 
to three quarters of an inch on a side. 

25. When did Mr. Bodge state to you his proposed method 
of applying hydraulic pressure to the rubber ; and will you 
please state what he said, at that time, if anything, in relation 
to his proposed use of the follower? 

Ans. He proposed to make an iron machine. 

[ Question 25 re-read.~\ 

He proposed, the first time I met him in the mill, to apply 
the hydraulic pressure to the wooden machine ; and as soon as 
he could ascertain what he wanted, would have the iron ma- 
chine built. 



120 ASA J. LYON. 



26. Please answer the last part of the former question, 
which question the Examiner will re-read ? 

Ans. He proposed to dispense with the follower when he 
used hydraulic pressure. 

27. Did he make this statement at your first interview with 
him, on the 12th of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. He did. 

28. Beferring now to your interview with him on the 2d 
day of August, at the time the pails were made, what conversa- 
tion did you have with him, Mr. Bodge, in relation to any ma- 
chine? What did Mr. Bodge do and say? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge gave me an order, that day, for an iron 
machine, and gave me a rude pencil sketch, with the figures 
thereon, giving the dimensions of the machine. 

29. Will you please state, as nearly as you can, how he 
described the machine which he then gave you an order to 
build, and what kind of a pencil, or instrument, he used in 
making the sketches ? 

Ans. He proposed making a machine with a bed-plate that 
took the stock ring, or rings, up through the bottom of the bed- 
plate, fastening to the bottom of the bed-plate. The stock ring 
was in two parts, so that the groove that the stock was forced 
into could be turned out and made smooth, so that the stock 
wouldn't catch. Then there were about a dozen three-eighth 
holes drilled through the upper half of the stock ring, running 
diagonal, so as to strike as near the former as possible. In 
addition to this, was one large hole drilled and tapped to receive 
the pipe, through which the stock was to be forced into the 
stock ring. The former was finished on the outside and per- 
forated — not very close — with fine holes. Outside of this former, 
and bolted to the bed-plate, was a heavy iron dome about an 
inch and a quarter thick, round top with square corners. This 
dome extended down over the former, and received the rubber 
bag between the dome at the bottom and the bed-plate. On 



ASA J. LYON. 121 



top of this dome was a nipple to receive the pipe from the hy- 
draulic pump or machine. 

30. Will you state whether or not in machine Exhibit 2, 
there is any stock-ring, corresponding in its general construction 
to the one you made in the machine just described? If so, 
please point it out to the Examiner that he may note it, and 
you may state any differences in construction or form that 
occur to you. 

[ Witness points out part [i£], Bodge Exhibit No. 2, and 
says:'] 

This is a part of the stock-ring, similiar to the one that I 
have already described in the machine. 

31. At what time was this first iron machine completed ? 
Ans. During the month of August, 1882. 

32. State whether or not after Mr. Bodge gave you the order 
for the machine, and while you were constructing it, you had 
any interviews with Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge was at our shop quite frequently to see 
how we were getting along. 

33. Did Mr. Bodge, while at your shop, give you any direc- 
tions in regard to its construction ? 

Ans. The first figures he gave me wasn't changed much, if 
any, while the machine was being built. 

34. What was the outside shape of the dome of this ma- 
chine, and the distance or space from the former enclosed by 
the rubber, to the inside surface of the dome ? 

Ans. The inside walls of the dome were nearly parallel with 
the outside walls of the former, with a space of about two 
inches. The inside of the top of the dome was also about a 
uniform distance from the top of the former, with more space 
than on the walls. 

35. When did you deliver that machine ? 

Ans. That machine was delivered the last days of August, 
1882. 

16— P. O. 



122 ASA J. LYON. 



36. At that time, was the Fibre Ware Company engaged in 
making any additions to their works? 

Ans. They were engaged in building a Treating-House. 

37. Do you know whether or not Mr. Bodge gave his per- 
sonal attention to that work ? 

Ans. He did, and as I understood him, Prof. Carmichael, 
of Brunswick, made the plan of the Treating-House, and it was 
quite complicated, in some of its constructions, and required 
his whole attention. 

38. Do you know whether the machine which you built was 
set up in the Fibre Ware Company's works immediately after 
you delivered it? 

Ans. This machine wasn't set up until the last of Novem- 
ber or first days of December, 1882. 

39. Did you see it set up and in operation in 1882 ? If so 
state when. 

Ans. I saw it about the 20th of December of that year. 

40. How was it set up? 

Ans. It was mounted on a wooden frame, I should judge 
about 4 feet high, 

41. Will you state what you saw produced, if anything, and 
how the machine worked ? 

Ans. I saw a very few pails made, the first time I saw it 
in operation, rather imperfect, thin round the bottom near 
where the chime should be formed, and not of uniform thick- 
ness on the walls. Mr. Bodge thought the reason of their be- 
ing so thin round the bottom, come from putting the hydraulic 
pressure into the top of the dome; forcing the rubber bag down 
with the stock under it had a tendency to carry the stock 
down away from the corners. 

42. Did you, at that time, or later, see some perfect pails 
formed on that machine ? 

Ans. I did. 

43. When and how many ? 



ASA J. LYON. 123 



Ans. This machine was taken back to our shop and the 
nipple removed from the top of the dome, and the hole plugged, 
and the nipple put in on the side of the dome near the flange 
at the bottom. The former was also perforated finer than be- 
fore. After this was completed the machine was taken back to 
the Fibre Ware's mill in Waterville, and set up and tried about 
January 10, 1883. About this time I saw the machine op- 
erated. The work was better but not much of it perfect. There 
was a little tendency to make thin places on the walls, general- 
ly opposite the nipple, but sometimes thin places would occur 
on other parts of the wall. At this time there was one or two 
quite perfect pails formed. Mr. Bodge was trying to make 
pails without doing any finishing except to sand-paper. 

44. Do you remember if any persons were present about 
January 10, 1883, who witnessed the forming of the perfect 
pails ? 

Ans. Joseph G. Bodge, Mr. O'Brion, their book-keeper — I 
never have learned his given name — and myself. At that time 
Major Bichards, of Gardiner, Maine, came in, I think, with 
Charles D. Brown and one other gentleman that I can't tell 
who he was now. 

45. State whether or not, at or about this time, you made 
any part of a machine to be substituted for any part of the ma- 
chine that you saw operated as last mentioned ? 

Ans. Previous to this, we had made a small round top dome 
which was tried on this machine soon after this trial, a few 
days — it was a failure. Also previous to this, we had made 
an inside former and a corrugated dome, or fluted, that the 
former fitted in. The corrugation was simply for drainage for 
the water, and also for suction — drainage and suction. This 
also was tried prior to the 17th of January, and was also a 
failure. 

46. Do you know whether in the month of January, any 



124 ASA J. LYON. 



change was made or suggested, by Mr. Bodge, in the rubber 
applied to the former ? 

Ans. There was. We made an iron mould during the 
month of January, 1883, and shipped it the last days of January 
from Waterville, on the evening Pullman, to the Eevere Eubber 
Company of Boston. 

47. Eeferring now to the machine, as you saw it operated 
in -December, 1882, what kind of rubber did Mr. Bodge use on 
his machine then ? 

Ans. The first trial was dental rubber ; but it failed to do 
the business. They had a rubber bag made in Boston that was 
made up of parts cemented together. This wasn't quite right. 
They had an iron mould made in Boston ; the bag made in this 
mould, they thought wasn't quite right. The one that was 
made in the moulds that I have mentioned, that was shipped at 
Waterville aboard the Pullman, was better than any of the 
others. 

48. Do you know, of your own knowledge, that the bag 
made of parts cemented together, was made in Boston ? 

Ans. I am not certain about this. I was informed by 
parties connected with the mill that it was. 

49. Were you at the Fibre Company's mill on or about the 
16th of February, 1883, in the evening ? 

Ans. I was there in the afternoon and evening of the 16th. 

50. Did you see the pail machine in operation at that 
time — and if so, who were present ? 

Ans. Joseph G. Bodge, O'Brion, and myself, were operating 
this machine in the evening, and had taken out two quite fair 
pails ; and while we were forming the third one, C. D. Brown, 
H. J. Chisholm and a Mr. Smith, from Boston, came in to the 
mill ; and after they had been in there a few minutes, a pail 
was taken from the machine, and was a perfect pail. Mr. 
Bodge was very enthusiastic over it. 

51. Did you try the machine in the morning ? 



ASA J. LYON. 125 



Ans. Mr. Bodge and others tried it. I was not present at 
the trial. 

52. Where next did you see Mr. Bodge? and state what 
occurred. 

Ans. The next day, in the forenoon, Mr. Bodge and the 
gentleman, Smith, that I have mentioned, came to our shop in 
Oakland, and Mr. Bodge, as he approached me, said the ma- 
chine didn't work at all that morning ; and I asked him what 
was further to be done. He said Mr. Smith proposed putting 
on a larger dome ; and as they were in a hurry for this dome, 
Mr. Smith proposed to make what we call a swept-mould. 
He thought this could be done without the expense of a pat- 
tern. This we complied with at once, and got out the casting 
for the dome and put it on to the machine that we have re- 
ferred to heretofore. The machine was tried with this new 
dome on it, and did not work. The inside of this dome after- 
wards had a wood lining put in it, that changed the shape 
somewhat inside. After this had been completed the ma- 
chine was tried, and worked very well. 

53. At that time were you engaged in making any draw- 
ings ? If so, please state for what. 

Ans. I received an order the 19th day of February, for 
an entire new pail machine, of which I commenced to make 
the drawings and patterns at once. 

54. When was that machine completed and delivered, and 
how did it work ? 

Ans. That machine was completed during the month of 
March, 1883, and worked very well. 

55. Did you see pails produced by it ? 

Ans. I saw pails that were produced by this machine. 
These pails, generally, were very good — the most of them were 
good. 

56. State whether or not you made any more moulds for 
rubber ? 



126 ASA J. LYON. 



Ans. We did — I think during the month of March, 1883. 

57. For what were those moulds ? 

Ans. Those moulds were to make a rubber packing ring, 
according to my recollections now. 

58. Where did that ring go on the machine ? 

Ans. That was a packing ring round the bottom of the 
former, that packed the joint between the former and the stock 
ring, as the former stands in the machine. 

59. In the month of June, 1883, did you commence any 
work for the Fibre Ware Company, or for Mr. Bodge ? If so, 
what? 

Ans. We did. We commenced an entire new machine, 
that was constructed on nearly the same principle as the last 
mentioned machine, mounted on four cast iron legs. 

60. When was that machine completed ? 

Ans. That machine was finally completed on or before Au- 
gust 18, 1883. 

61. Eeferring to Bodge Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, will you 
please what those photographs represent ? 

Ans. These photographs represent the last mentioned ma- 
chine. 

62. Will you state how this machine, when completed and 
set up, operated, whether successfully, or otherwise ? 

Ans. This machine operated very successfully, and the 
pails made therein were very satisfactory. 

63. State, if you know, whether pails made on that ma- 
chine were treated and put upon the market ? 

Ans. They were. 

64. Now, will you please describe the machine, and its 
several parts, and the mode of operatiug it, as it is shown in 
these photographs ? 

Ans. This machine was made with a heavy cast iron bed- 
plate to receive the legs of the machine ; also heavy pieces 
which were a part of the bed-plate to receive the cast steel 



ASA J. LYON. 127 



dogs which completed ]the locking arrangement. On the oth- 
er side of the castings, . directly urder the dogs, were two 
heavy iron hangers which were bolted to the bed-plate — the 
lower end of these hangers having a slot cast through them to 
receive the levers that were connected with the steel dogs. 
At the bottom of these two levers was a knuckle or toggle 
joint. To this knuckle joint was a rod connected by which 
this joint was to be operated in locking and unlocking this 
machine. On the end of this rod was a rack attached, to re- 
ceive a pinion which was hung on a shaft under the floor, that 
does not show here in this photograph. On the said shaft 
was a pinion of larger dimensions, in which another rack 
worked. This other rack had a rod connected to it, that ex- 
tended up through the floor, that the operator could use in the 
operation in raising and lowering the former. On the said 
shaft was also a twelve inch sheave, to which a counter-bal- 
ance was attached to balance this former and the parts con- 
nected thereto. This machine, above the parts described, is 
similar in form to the machine heretofore described. Under 
the plate that the former was attached to, was a couple of 
sleeves bolted thereto to slide on a couple of rods that were 
attached to the under side of the bed-plate of the machine, to 
guide the former when it was being raised in the machine, and 
lowered out. These sleeves made a stop for the former as it 
was lowered from the machine. 

65. Was there any suction attached to this machine ? 

Ans. There was none. 

[Adjourned to June 8, 9 a. m.] 



June 8, 1886, 9:30. 

[ On account of the temporary absence of Mr. Lunt, J. 3. 
JLange, Esq., will continue the direct-examination of the witness.'] 



128 ASA J. LYON. 



66. In your answer to Int. 11, you refer to the part [E] 
among other parts of Bodge Exhibit jSTo. 2 which you saw on 
the 12th day of July, 1882. If Mr. Bodge in any way explained 
or said anything regarding this part [E] at that time, will you 
please state what he said ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge explained to me that there was a channel 
in the bottom of the machine, partly in wood and partly iron, 
through which the stock was to be forced inside the rubber 
bag. As the rubber was on the machine, there was no chance 
to examine this to see how it was constructed, without taking 
the machine apart. That he did not do at that time. 

67. In your answer to Int. 28, you stated as follows: " Mr. 
Bodge gave me an order that day for an iron machine, and gave 
me a rude pencil sketch with the figures thereon giving the di- 
mensions of the machine." Will you please state whether or 
not he made the rude sketch in your presence? 

Ans. Part of it he made while I was there, and part of it he 
made before. 

68. What kind of a writing or marking instrument did he 
use in making that part of the sketch which you saw made? 

Ans. He used a common lead pencil. 

69. In your answers to Ints. 31 and 32, you state in sub- 
stance that Mr. Bodge was at your shop quite frequently to 
see how you were getting along" with the construction of the 
first iron machine, during the month of August, 1882. Will you 
please state whether while at your shop, during such time, Mr. 
Bodge made sketches relating to the said machine, or work per- 
taining thereto ; and if so, where and under what circumstances ? 

Ans. I have no recollections of anything in particular, in 
regard to sketches, as Mr. Bodge was constantly talking this 
matter up. 

70. Where and with whom did Mr. Bodge constantly talk 
this matter up ? 

Ans. In our shop, sometimes at my bench, and sometimes 



ASA J. LYON. 129 



in our office. I have no knowledge of his talking this matter 
up with any one except myself. I think Charles B. Gardner 
was present some of the time, the last two or three days before 
the machine was completed. 

71. During these talks with you, did Mr. Bodge use a pen- 
cil or other marking instrument, to mark out or illustrate any 
parts of the machine or plans therefor, or in ascertaining di- 
mensions or figures relating to said machine ? 

Ans. Mr. Bodge always used a common lead pencil in my 
presence, in all his marking and drawing. 

72. Will you please state whether the iron machine which 
you constructed in August, 1882, after Mr. Bodge had given 
you the rude sketch of such machine, as indicated in your an- 
swer to Int. 28, was constructed with the aid of pattern draw- 
ings, and if yea, who made said drawings ? 

Ans. I made working drawings for this machine. 

73. What has become of such drawings ? 

Ans. All of the drawings were left in the shop of Lyon, 
Bragg & Hubbard, when I retired from said firm. I have no 
further knowledge in regard to the drawings. 

74. What has become of the working drawings that were 
made for the other two iron machines referred to by you in 
your previous examination ? 

Ans. These drawings were with the previous drawings that 
have been mentioned. 

75. Can you state, upon information what became of these 
various drawings after you left the firm of Lyon, Bragg & 
Hubbard ? 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael objects to the question as call- 
ing for hearsay testimony.'] 

Ans. I cannot, only as Mr. Carmichael came to my house 
one evening with a few pieces of paper that had some drawings, 
pencil sketches. 

76. What, if anything, did he say ? 

17— P. 0. 



130 ASA J. LYON. 



Ans. He said those were pieces that he had got from Hub- 
bard, Bragg & Co., as the firm is now. 

77. Did he say anything further relating to said pieces or 
any drawings, and if yea, what ? 

Ans. He said that the drawings had generally been used for 
various purposes about the shop and had not been preserved. 

[Counsel for Carmichael moves that the latter answer be 
stricken out as hearsay evidence and not competent?^ 

78. Will you state, if you know, what has become of the 
three iron machines which were built under your directions, and 
to which you have referred in your previous examination ? 

Ans. I think the first machine was melted up at our shop, 
previous to the fire, when the Fibre Ware Mills were burned, at 
Waterville. The other two machines, according to my best 
knowledge and belief, went through the fire when the mill was 
burned. Those machines I bought afterwards of C. P. Sher- 
man, of Waterville, among other old iron that I bought of him, 
that came from the ruins of the mill. 

79. Can you state when this fire occurred ? 

Ans. According to my recollections this fire occurred in the 
fall or winter of 1883-4. 

80. In your answer to Int. 63 you stated in substance, that 
pails made on the last machine you built, as referred to in your 
previous examination, were put upon the market. If you can 
will you please state when such pails were put on the market ? 

Ans. As near as I can recollect, very few of those pails 
were sold to private individuals during the month of September, 
1883. 

81. In your answer to Int. 43, wherein you refer to the 
first machine built by you for Mr. Bodge, you st.ite : " Mr. Bodge 
was trying to make pails without doing any finishing, except 
to sand-paper." Will you please explain a little more fully 
what you mean by the matter just quoted ? 

Ans. I mean, instead of making the pails very heavy and 



ASA J. LYON. 131 



clumsy, as they are now made, and the surplus stock taken 
from the outside, by the means of saws or other device, Mr. 
Bodge was trying to form the pail perfect without this opera- 
tion, and to finish them by simply sand-papering the outside 
and trimming the edge of the pail. 

82. I direct your attention to the device which I point out 
to you, and ask you to state if you know what it is, and for 
what it was used ? 

Ans. This device I never saw complete until I came here. 
The irons on the top I had seen before. This, as I understand 
it, was used for a plunger or follower, in place of the first one 
that was made for the wooden machine before described. 

[Said device introduced and marked : "Bodge JSxhibit, Sec- 
tional Plunger— A. H. D., Ex'r. June 8, 1886."] 

83. Will you state when first you saw the irons, on the top 
of Bodge Exhibit — Sectional Plunger, and relate the circum- 
stances attending the same ? 

Ans. According to my best recollections, those irons weie 
being made at our shop, that is, Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard's shop 
at Oakland, Me., some time during the month of March, 1883. 

84. State, if you know, with what the plunger was used, if 
at all, and how it was so used ? 

Ans. At the time the iron work was made, I made a ring 
of wood that was turned straight on the outside, to fill the 
wooden cylinder or the main cylinder of Bodge Exhibit No. 2. 
This ring was turned tapering on the inside, and at the right di- 
ameter at the bottom to bring the sectional plunger together 
as it was forced down to the bottom. 

85. "To bring the sectional plunger together as it was forced 
down to the bottom" of what ? 

Ans. Bottom of the cylinder in forming the pail, 

86. When did you make this wooden ring which was made 
tapering on the inside, as referred to in your last answer but 
one? 



32 ASA J. LYON. 



Ans. According to my best recollections, this wooden ring 
was made during the month of March, 1883. 

87. In view of your last answer but one, will you please 
state what other parts than the sectional plunger, the tapered 
ring, and the cylinder, of Bodge Exhibit No. 2, were used in 
forming the pail ? 

Ans. I cannot state as this sectional plunger and ring that 
I made was ever used in this machine, as I never saw them 
used, and have no certain knowledge of their ever being used. 
Mr. Bodge remarked to me at the time this work was being 
done, that he was going back on to the old wooden machine to 
experiment some more. 

88. At, or about the time you made the tapered wooden 
ring to be used in connection with Bodge Exhibit — Sectional 
Plunger, was said plunger provided with the iron work on the 
top of it as it now appears ? 

Ans. Said plunger, as I have already answered, I never saw 
before coming here. 

89. At, or about the time you made the wooden ring, did 
you see a part of the Bodge Exhibit — Sectional Plunger as it 
now is, and if yea, what iron or other work did it have at its 
top? 

Ans. I saw the iron-work which is now attached to the 
top, as it was being made at our shop — my recollections are — 
during the month of March, 1883. 

90. Have you ever seen any sectional plunger, other than 
the one here exhibited, in connection with the Bodge Machine 
Exhibit No. 2, at the Fibre Ware Company in Waterville ? 

Ans. I never did. As I understood Mr. Bodge, these irons 
referred to here were to go on a sectional plunger to take the 
place of irons that did not work. 



[Direct Examination closed.'] 



ASA J. LYON. 133 



Cross-Examination by Chaeles F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 

Carmichael. 

X 91. What was the first woik you ever did for the Fibre 
Ware Company, at Waterville, and when ? 

Ans. The first work we ever did for the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, of Waterville, was to make a segment and pinion pattern 
from which to take out castings to be fitted up and put on to 
their water wheel then in use. This work was completed and 
put on August 2, 1882. 

X 92. Was there any urgency in this work ? 

Ans. There was some, as their mill was shut down on 
account of the gate gearing being worn out. 

X 93. After this lapse of time — about four years — can you 
distinctly remember the details of the first conversation you 
ever had with Mr. Bodge, when you casually entered the mill 
out of curiosity ? 

Ans. I can, the principal conversation. 

X 94. Will you please give it in detail, stating remarks 
made by Mr. Bodge and those made by you, in the course of 
conversation, from the beginning of your entrance into the mill ? 

Ans. As I entered the mill, Mr. Bodge approached me, and 
said that he had posted notices at the doors of the mill for no 
one to enter. I told him I came in out of curiosity, to see 
wl at they were doing, but would go out if he insisted. He 
asked me who I was and what my business was. After telling 
him what my business was, he said he thought I was just the 
man he wanted to see. After this conversation he took me 
along to a pail machine, which is exhibited here, and showed 
me what he was trying to accomplish. 

X 95. Is that all ? 

Ans. He also stated to me that he proposed at some future 
time — this was after explaining, showing to me the working of 
said machine — he proposed to have an iron machine built. 



134 ASA J. LYON. 



X 96. Is that the whole ? 

Ans. This is the principal conversation in regard to busi- 
ness. 

X 97. If there are any additional details, please give them. 

Ans. He showed me the working of the basin machines 
that were then in operation. 

X 98. Anything else ? 

Ans. That was all. 

X 99. Was any secrecy imposed by Mr. Bodge upon you in 
the matter of his disclosures, explanations, or intended plans ? 

Ans. There was. 

X 100. What ? 

Ans. He didn't want his idea of the machine conveyed to 
any one through me. 

X 101. Did he give any reasons ? 

Ans. He considered this invention a valuable one — that he 
had conceived. 

X 102. What invention do you refer to in your last answer ? 

Ans. I refer to the rubber bag, and the hydraulic pressure 
outside of it ? 

X 103. What reasons had he for reposing confidence in 
you, a perfect stranger to him, whom he had casually met for 
the first time ? 

Ans. I suppose his reasons were this. The Fibre Ware 
Company, of Waterville, at this time, as I learned afterwards, 
were out with Webber, Haviland & Philbrick, who had been 
doing their work previous to this. 

X 104. What was the difficulty ? 

Ans. As I have learned since, it was on account of pay. 

X 105. What was the trouble about the pay ? 

Ans. This company, as I understand, didn't pay them very 
promptly. 

X 106. How could Mr. Bodge know, at this time, that you 
were a person in whom he could safely repose confidence ? 



ASA J. LYON. 135 



Ans. That I can't tell. 

X 107. In your answer to Int. 95, you say he explained 
the working of the Bodge machine, Exhibit No. 2, as it then 
was. What explanations did he make to you about the work- 
ing of that machine ? 

Ans. He explained to me, at that time, that he had a plunger 
or follower that was nearly complete that he proposed to force 
down over the rubder bag, after the stock had been forced in 
under it, and form the pail by this means ; but he proposed, at 
some future time, to put on water pressure, as he termed it at 
that time, or hydraulic pressure outside of the bag, in place of 
the follower or plunger. 

X 108. Did he describe the plunger? 

Ans. The plunger that was partly completed I saw upstairs 
partly completed. To all appearances some one bad recently 
been at work on it. 

X 109. What sort of a plunger was it ? 

Ans. Plunger made of soft wood, of staves, tapering on the 
outside, smaller at the end that had the head in it, so that the 
hoops might be driven down close to hold it together. 

X 110. How did it differ from this exhibit marked Bodge 
Exhibit — Sectional Plunger ? 

Ans. The plunger or follower that I saw was made by hand, 
of soft lumber, with a head in it. As I recollect it now there 
was a face plate screwed on the head on the outside. This face 
plate fitted their lathe. This was a device by which to hang 
his follower or plunger to the spindle of the lathe to turn the 
inside. I think the inside, at this time, had been roughed 
out. 

X 111. When did you first see this plunger completed ? 

Ans. August 2, 1882. 

X 112. When did you first see it with sectional parts, or 
hear from Mr. Bodge of any plunger with sectional parts ? 

Ans. I never saw it with sectional parts. Perhaps I 



136 ASA J. LYON. 



better correct that; I never saw a plunger with sectional parts 
for this No. 2 machine Bodge Exhibit, until coming into this 
office. 

X 113. When did you first hear from Mr. Bodge of any 
plunger, with sectional parts, to be used on a pail machine ? 

Ans. During the month of March, 1883, at the time we 
made the wooden ring and the iron-work now on this sectional 
plunger here before us. 

X 114. At the time of your first interview with Mr. Bodge, 
while he was explaining the working of the machine Bodge 
Exhibit No. 2, did he state how the machine had previously 
been used, and why a new plunger was being made ? 

Ans. He didn't explain that to me, at that time, although 
he said he had tried to make a pail. 

X 115. Did he state what success he had had in trying to 
make a pail ? 

Ans. My recollections are now, that he had succeeded in 
making a rather homely thing by patching up somewhat. 

X 116. Did he state how he made it ? 

Ans. He did not. 

X 117- In your answer to Int. 114, you say he did not 
explain to me, at that time, how the machine had been pre- 
viously used and why a new plunger was being made. Did 
he subsequently make such explanation ? 

Ans. He did not, as I recollect now. 

X 118. So that you never knew the previous history of 
this machine and the efforts of Mr. Bodge to make a pail 
from it ? 

Ans. I never had, only as I have stated before. 

X 119. In your answer to Int. 107, you say : " He explained 
to me, at that time, that he had a plunger or follower, that 
was nearly complete, that he proposed to force down over 
the rubber bag, after the stock had been forced in under it, 
and form the pail by this means ; but he proposed, at some 



ASA J. LYON. 137 



future time, to put on water pressure outside of the bag in 
place of the follower or plunger." Did he state why he was 
wasting his time in making this plunger, if he proposed then 
to abandon it for some other device, before he had tested the 
efficiency of the one he was then constructing ? 

Ans. He did not. 

X 120. In what part of the mill was this pail machine at 
the time of your first visit ? 

Ans. On the first floor, near the basin press, on the north or 
north and east side of the mill, near the centre of the mill length- 
wise. 

X 121. In your answer to Int. 90, you state that you under- 
stood that the irons that you made for Bodge Exhibit — Sectional 
Plunger, were to take the place of other irons that did not 
work. Did Mr. Bodge make any statement to you, as to what 
the difficulty was, about the irons and who had made them ? 

Ans. He didn't state to me who made the irons ; but my 
recollections are now, that there was a joint where they joined 
the sectional plunger. 

X 122. Had those other irons been made in your shop? 

Ans. They had not. 

X 123. Did you ever learn where they were made ? 

Ans. I never have. 

X 124. Or how long previous to the time you made the new 
ones ? 

Ans. I have no knowledge back of the date of making the 
new irons. 

[ Witness points to Bodge Exhibit — Sectional Plunger. ~\ 

X 125. At the time you made the new irons for this sec- 
tional plunger, did it show any signs of having been previously 
used ? 

Ans. This plunger before us never appeared at our shop 
other than the irons that we made, to my knowledge. 
18— P. 0. 



ASA J. LYON". 



X 126. Does this plunger now before us, show the marks 
of considerable use ? 

Ans. I haven't examined it in regard to that matter. Ma- 
chinery after being used for manufacturing pulp a few times, 
and then sitting after being used for a time, I think it would be 
hard to judge as to the amount of labor performed in the time 
of its being in use. 

X 127. If you desire to examine it for that purpose, do so. 
It is in plain view before you. 

Ans. I have no desire, on my part, to examine. 

X 128. Do you prefer to leave your answer as it stands in 
connection with Int. 126 ? 

[Objected to — in view of Int. 121, from the form of which it was 
left optional with the witness as to examination, and no request 
has been made of him to examine it for the purpose of cross-ex- 
aminatio7i.~] 

Ans. I do, for the present. 

X 129. If you prefer not to take the trouble to go ten feet 
to examine that exhibit, will you state whether the same as it 
now stands in plain view before you, exhibits clearly on its 
surface exposed to your view marks of having been used ? 

Ans. I have no objection in examining the sectional plung- 
er now before us, if requested so to do, but should say by the 
marks on the surface that appear to be seen, that this plunger 
had done some experimenting. 

X 130. What different marks would appear on a plunger 
which had " done some experimenting," from those on one 
which had done work not of an experimental character ? 

Ans. I really don't understand, by the question, what Mr. 
Libby would like to have me explain. Any marks or altera- 
tions or changes that would appear on a plunger or follower, 
would show that there has been some experimenting to cause 
these changes to be made. 

X 131. What marks on this plunger, which you say you 



ASA J. LYON. 139 



see for the first time in this office, show that the work done by 
it was work of an experimental character, rather than ordinary 
use ? I refer now to the general appearance of this exhibit, as 
seen by you. 

Ans. I should be obliged to examine in order to answer 
this question clearly. 

X 132. I refer now to your answer to Int. 129, which you 
gave from seeing the surface of the plunger as exposed to your 
view, without examination, in which you say : " I should say, 
by the marks on the surface, that appear to be seen, that this 
plunger had done some experimenting." What is there in the 
marks on the surface, that shows that the work done by this 
plunger was " experimenting "? 

Ans. I see no other marks than this : that it looks as though 
there might bave been a band of iron at the bottom, as it now 
stands. Whether this was a continuous band or a sectional band, 
I have no means of judging. I also see a nipple up on the side 
of the follower, that looks as though it was made of tin, with 
the top knocked in. This looks as though it might have been, 
at some time, used for a drain-pipe to connect. 



[Adjourned to 2.30, same day.] 



2.30 p. M. 

X 133. Are the marks referred to by you in your last 
answer, the marks that indicate the extent of use of the ma- 
chine ? If not, will you please state if there are not dis- 
colorations upon the surface and splashings of pulp upon the 
wood and iron work, and other marks, which show that this 
exhibit has been in use ? 

Ans. The marks mentioned by me are marks that would 
indicate some change. There are also marks of pulp and dis- 
colorations, which indicate its former use. 



140 ASA. J. LYON. 



X 134. If I understand you aright, between August 2, 
1882, and August, 1883, you made three distinct pail machines 
or Mr. Bodge. Am I correct ? 

Ans. There might have been one or two parts of the first 
machine — and I think there was — that were put in to the 
second machine. The former, if I recollect right, went in, 
possibly the stock ring. With that exception I think there 
were three complete iron machines built. 

X 135. Will you please describe what form of rubber was 
used with each of these machines, and how long each machine 
was in use, as nearly as you can say ? 

Ans. The first machine, at the first operation, had dental 
rubber in it for a bag. This was used but a few times, as I 
recollect, before it broke, after which they ordered one from 
Boston that was made up of pieces and cemented together in 
the joints. This was made as near the shape of a pail as 
convenient to make it — I should have said the outside of the 
pail. After this had been used a few weeks they ordered an 
iron' mould made in Boston in which to have a rubber bag or 
diaphragm made. This was used a few times, and they gave 
us an order for a mould which we made and shipped to the 
Eevere Bubber Company, of Boston — my recollections are 
from the middle to the last of January, 1883. This mould 
was shipped from Waterville on the Pullman train in the eve- 
ning, as I delivered the mould at the station myself. This 
rubber was used also a few times in the first machine. About 
February 19, 1883, we received an order for the second ma- 
chine, which, according to my recollections, was completed in 
March, 1883. This second machine had the rubber that was 
used in the first machine. This machine was used some dur- 
ing April and May the same year, and was found to be quite 
perfect in its workings. During the month of June, the same 
year, we received an order for the third machine, built on the 
same principle as the second machine. This machine was pro- 



ASA J. LYON. 141 



vided with a device for raising and lowering the former. This 
machine had a rubber bag made up of pieces, and as I recol- 
lect now, was made by N, P. Hanson, who was at work for 
them at tbat time. This machire, as I recollect now, was 
completed about the middle of August the same year. The 
last two machines had a rubber packing ring around the bot- 
tom of the former which packed the joint between the former 
and the stock ring. 

X 136. Which, if any, of these machines was successful in 
its ordinary operation in making pails ? 

Ans. The last two were quite successful. 

X 137. How far, and in what degree was each successful ? 

Ans. They made quite perfect and uniform pails. So much 
so that I think there were upwards of fifty of them finished. 

X 138. By which machine were the fifty pails, referred to 
in your last answer, made ? 

Ans. These pails were made in the last two machines men- 
tioned. There was but very little difference in the pails made 
in the two machines. 

X 139. Do you know, of your personal knowledge, what 
proportion of the fifty pails mentioned by you were made on 
each of the two machines referred to ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 140. Was the first machine made by you and set up in 
the latter part of November or early in December, 1882, a suc- 
cessful machine in making pails? 

Ans. It was not very. 

X 141. How long was the wooden machine, parts of which 
are now before you, marked Bodge Exhibit No. 2, used, on 
which you say in your answer to Int. 19 you saw two imperfect 
pails made on the 2d day of August, 1882 ? 

Ans. I have no personal knowledge of its being used but 
very little after that day. 



142 ASA J. LYON. 



X 142. Have you ever known of this machine being used 
with a sectional plunger ? 

Ans. I have no certain knowledge that it ever was. 

X 143. Was anything said by Mr. Bodge to you, as to when 
he conceived the invention referred to in your answer to Int. 
102 ? 

Ans. He did not tell me when he conceived it. 

X 144. Did he, in any conversation with you, speak of it 
as a new idea that he had just got, or words to that effect? 

Ans. I don't think he ever did, 

X 145. Did you ever make a statement to that effect to 
anybody ? 

Ans. I have no recollections of it now. 

X 146. How does it happen that this machine, Bodge 
Exhibit Ho. 2, was not destroyed with the other machines, in 
the fire that burned the mill ? 

Ans. As I have understood, by Mr. Bodge and others, 
this machine was carried away from the mill by Mr. Bodge, at 
the time they were having the controversy in regard to his 
procuring his patent ; as he utterly refused to assign it to the 
Fibre Ware Company. 

X 147. When was that ? 

Ans. This, according to my best recollections, was some 
time during the summer and fall; I should say from recollec- 
tions, during the month of August or September, 1883. 

X 148. In any of the pail machines which you have 
described, as having seen in use at the mill, in Waterville, from 
August 2, 1882, to the time the mill was burned, was any 
process of suction used in forming the pail ? and if so, state 
what machine and how it was operated in that respect. 

Ans. The first machine that was built by us, in 1882, was 
changed at one time, to form a pail on the inside of the former, 
with a heavy cast iron dome that the former fitted inside of. 
This dome was channeled or grooved on the inside next to the 



ASA J. LYON. 143 



former for drainage and suction. This machine after it was 
changed and set up. as I understood Mr. Bodge, had the suc- 
tion and also the hydraulic pressure attached thereto, but did 
not work. This machine I never saw in operation, the inside 
former of which is now in the office — or adjoining office. 

X 149. When was this experiment made ? 

Ans. These parts were being made the last of December, 
1882, and the fore part of January, 1883, and were tried, I 
think, during the month of January, 1883. 

X 150. When did this idea of using hydrostatic pressure 
from the outside, with a rubber bag, or diaphragm, first take a 
successful shape in a working machine, with which you had 
anything to do in the making of it, as previously described ? 

Ans. The first good pail that I ever saw made — what I 
mean by this is, as nearly perfect as could be made without 
some device for dressing the outside, except sand-papering, 
was made on the evening of the 16th of February, 1883. 

X 151. Was the success of that machine, at that time* 
sufficient to demonstrate the efficiency of that method of mak- 
ing pails ? 

Ans. The parties present at that time so considered it. 

X 152. Why, then, did Mr. Bodge, subsequent to that time, 
go back on to the old wooden machine and plunger method, as 
you have stated in your previous testimony in answer to Int. 
87, and those prior ? 

[Objected to — incompetent.'] 

Ans. These machines, and also the men that were operating 
them, had bad days for doing good work. When these bad 
days came about they would sometimes resort to other methods 
for accomplishing the work. 

X 153. In your answer to Int. 28 you speak of a rude pen- 
cil-sketch made by Mr. Bodge of the first machine for which he 
gave you an order. What sort of a sketch was it ? and what 



144 ASA J. LYON. 



if anything, did it indicate, with regard to the facility of Mr. 
Bodge in making sketches of machines to be constructed ? 

Ans. The sketch that he gave me August 2, 1882, was 
partly completed a-jd finished in my presence. This was not a 
very clear idea of what he wanted ; but as I had been quite 
used to working from such sketches before, I made working 
drawings from his sketch and built the machine. It seemed to 
meet his ideas very favorably. 

X 154, During your somewhat extensive employment in 
making changes and experimenting with these different ma- 
chines, to what extent was your own skill and facility as a 
draughtsman and machinist drawn upon by Mr. Bodge ? 

f Objected to — immaterial.] 

Ans. At times to a considerable extent. 
X 155. In what particulars? 

[Same objection.'] 

Ans. In regard to the construction of new machines and 
changes that were being made. 

X 156. Among the pieces of paper which, in your answer 
to Int. 75, you say that Mr. Carmichael brought to your house 
one evening, with some pencil drawings upon them, did you 
see any sketches made by Mr. Bodge for this first machine, or 
any other sketches made by him at any other time having refer- 
ence to these matters ? 

Ans. I saw on one piece of paper that Mr. Carmichael had 
at my house, a pencil sketch that I was not able at that time, 
and am not now, to say whether the sketch was made by him 
or myself. I do know this much, that the figures giving the 
dimensions thereon, were made by myself. 

X 157. Was there more than one piece of paper, on which 
you saw any sketches, which you even thought might have 
been made by Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. There were none aside from the piece mentioned. 



ASA J. LYON. ' 145 



X 158. When were these pieces of paper brought to your 
house by Prof. Carrnichael ? 

Ans. I have no memorandum by which I can state posi- 
tively, but I think it was the fore part of May, 1886, according 
to my recollections. 

X 159. Do you recall your conversation with Prof. Car- 
rnichael about these sketches ? 

Ans. I think in substance it was nearly as I have stated 
here in regard to these sketches. 

X 160. Can you give the conversation, in substance, as it 
took place between him and you in regard to this matter ? 

[ Objected to — as not referring to matters inquired of in di- 
rect examination.'] 

Ans. I cannot only in regard to the sketch, as everything 
outside of that I considered confidential at the time, and there 
was no one present at the time, except my wife. 

X 161. What do you mean by the phrase that you con- 
sidered it confidential ? 

Ans. I mean by that, that I supposed that was the end of 
the conversation, and it would go no further, as there was, at 
that time, a misunderstanding between me and Mr. Bodge in 
regard to certain business matters. 

X 162. Did that misunderstanding affect the accuracy or 
truthfulness of your statement then made to Prof. Charmichael ? 

[ Objected to — irrelevant and not referring to anything inquired 
of in the direct examination.] 

Ans. It did not in the least. 

[Adjourned to June 9, 1886, 9 A. m.] 



June 9, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 
X 163. When was the misunderstanding referred to in your 
answer to Int. 161 removed ? 

Ans. The misunderstanding that I refer to, between Mr. 
19— P. 0. 



146 ASA J. LYON. 



Bodge and myself, was in regard to the financial standing of 
the Fibre Ware Company. He had constantly stated to me 
that they were perfectly good. But when the final settlement 
came between us and them, we were obliged to take sixty cents 
on a dollar for our bill. The sixty cents amounted to about 
$820 according to my recollections. This misunderstanding, 
of course, was partially removed at the time of settlement, if 
not wholly. 

X 164. In your answer to Int. 161, you state that you sup- 
posed that your conversation with Prof. Carmichael would go 
no further, as there was, at that time, a misunderstanding 
between you and Mr. Bodge, in regard to certain business mat' 
ters. Does the misunderstanding which existed at the time of 
your conversation with Prof. Carmichael, exist to-day ? 

Ans. I would like to explain this misunderstanding men- 
tioned, now. After the Indurated Fibre Company was organized 
Mr. Bodge came to our place to see about having new machines 
built for manufacturing pails and hollow ware, and finally 
before leaving decided to have all patterns in our possession 
formerly belonging to the Fibre Ware Company shipped to 
Saccarappa. I don't recall the full name of the firm to whom 
they were shipped. The last firm name was Brown. The firm 
really was Foster & Brown, as it occurs to me now. After this 
interview with Mr. Bodge at our place, I was advised not to 
ship patterns until I received orders from head-quarters. This 
advice I complied with. After a few days, I received a letter 
from Mr. Bodge inquiring why I did not ship the patterns. I 
replied that I would when I received orders from head-quarters. 
In a very short time I received an order from Franklin J. Eol- 
lins to ship patterns to Foster & Brown, Saccarappa. I also, at 
about the same time, received quite a sharp letter from Mr. 
Bodge in regard to the matter, which I replied to, and explained 
my reasons for not shipping, as I agreed with him. 

This matter stood in this way, until I met Mr. Bodge about 



ASA J. LYON. 147 



four weeks ago, perhaps a little less than that. I approached 
him in regard to the matter, and told him I thought we had 
better talk the matter up, and come to some understanding in 
regard to the matter. This we did ; and this was after the 
conversation with Prof. Carmichael. This last conversation 
with Mr. Bodge was at Webber & Philbrick's shop, in Water- 
ville, where I am employed. 

X 165. What explanations of your reasons for not shipping 
the patterns did you give Mr. Bodge, in your reply to the quite 
sharp letter which you received from him, as stated in your 
last answer ? 

[ Objected to — as not referring in the slightest to matters in- 
quired of in the direct examination, and as immaterial to the 
issues involved.'] 

Ans. I told him we proposed to take our orders from head- 
quarters, as we thought the loss on the bill that we had re- 
cently settled came from his misrepresenting the standing of 
the company. 

X 166. What understanding did you come to about the 
matter, and how was it brought about, as stated in the latter 
part of your answer to Int. 164 ? 

Ans. As I have already stated in a previous answer, I ap- 
proached Mr. Bodge in regard to the matter, and told him that 
we had better come to some understanding in regard to the 
misunderstanding. I also told him why I did not comply with 
his order for shipping the patterns. He said this being the 
case, he did not consider me to blame. 

X 167. How did Mr. Bodge happen to be at the shop 
where you were employed, about four weeks ago ? 

Ans. He came there with S. W. Bates. 

X 168. For what purpose ? 

f Objected to — as incompetent.'] 

Ans. Mr. Bates and Mr. Bodge came there to ascertain, as 
near as possible, the date of the first time of my being in the 



148 ASA J. LYON. 



Fibre Ware shop ; and also to ascertain at what time we com- 
menced to work for them, as near as possible. 

X 169. Had Prof. Carmichael, at an earlier date, and before 
your misunderstanding with Mr. Bodge had been adjusted, been 
to see you with reference to the same matter ? 

Ans. He had. 

X 170. Did you then make statements to him, placing your 
first visit to the Fibre Ware Company's mill in Waterville, at 
a later date than you now fix it in your testimony ? 

Ans. I did not fix any date with Prof. Carmichael. Simply 
this : I told Prof. Carmichael, in the first place, according to 
my recollections, it must have been the last days of June. I 
told him I could ascertain a little closer, if I knew the dates 
on the company's books of the first job that we did for them. 
I also told him I thought it about three weeks previous to the 
first charge on the books that I was in the mill. He re- 
marked then and there, that the first dates on the book were 
August 2d. I told him, that being the case, it must have been 
towards the middle of July that I was there. 

X 170. I notice that you introduce your last answer by 
the words : " According to my recollections." Are you willing 
to swear positively, that in your conversation with Prof. Car- 
michael you fixed the date of your first visit to the mill in 
Waterville, as the latter part of June or middle of July, as 
there stated ? 

Ans. I am. 

X 172. How many conversations did you have with Prof. 
Carmichael on this matter ? 

Ans. I think I met Mr. Carmichael at three different times. 

X 173. At what intervals apart ? 

Ans. The first time I met Mr. Carmichael was at Webber 
& Philbrick's shop, at Waterville, where I am employed. On 
the evening of the same day he came to my house. A few days 
later than this, when I drove into my yard, returning home from 



ASA J. LYON. 149 



my work, Prof. Carmichael was standing inside of my gate, in 
my yard. He approached me, said he would like to see me for 
a few minutes. I asked him to step into the house while T put 
my horse up, and I would see him. I also saw him in the 
house. 

X 174 At your first interview with Prof. Carmichael, did 
you not state to him, that your first visit to the Fibre "Ware 
Company's mill, in Waterville, was not more than four or five 
days previous to the first job of work that your old firm of 
Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard did for them, and referred him to the 
books of the old firm, as fixing that date, at the same time tell- 
ing him where those books could be found ? 

Ans. The statement that I made to Prof. Carmichael, at 
that time, was this, or very nearly : About two weeks after my 
being in the Fibre Ware Company's mill, the first time, Mr. 
Bodge came to our place with an old segment and pinion that 
was worn out, and requested me to make patterns from which 
to take out castings and fit up and put on as soon as possible. 
I also told him that it was about one week from the time I re- 
ceived the order up to the time this work was put on, and that 
was the first charge on the books. I also told him that he 
would probably find the books at George W. Hubbard's house 
in Oakland, as I had understood that the old books were kept 
at his house. 

X 175. After Prof. Carmichael had been to see the account 
books of your old firm of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, and had re- 
ported to you the date of the first charge for work done for the 
Fibre Ware Company as August 2, 1882, did you not state to 
him, that your first visit was not more than four or five days 
previous to the commencement of the first job, and that the 
job was finished in about three days, as the mill was shut down 
and the work pushed right along, or words in substance to that 
effect ? 

Ans. I have no recollections of any statements to him in 



150 ASA J. LYON. 



regard to this matter, different from what I have previously 
stated, as it would take me at least three days to make the 
pinion and segment pattern, and as we were only casting twice 
a week at that time, it would have been impossible for us to 
have got out the castings and finished this work and put it on, 
in much less than one week. 

X 176. Did you not, in one of the conversations you had 
with Prof. Carmichael at this time, state to him that Mr. 
Bodge never made any sketches of the machines you built, only 
a few rough lines, and that you had to furnish the drawings and 
many of the ideas that were embodied in the machine, or words 
to that effect ? 

[ Objected to — as not specifically fixing time and place."] 

Ans. I think I made this statement to Prof. Carmichael, at 
one of our interviews — I can't say which, at this time — that Mr. 
Bodge had never furnished any scale drawings, or working 
drawings of any of the machines that we built. He had usually 
given pencil-sketches, with figures thereon, that were generally 
put there by myself, as he generally claimed that he had no 
time to make working drawings. 

X 177. Did you not further say to Prof. Carmichael, at one 
of the conversations above referred to, that Mr. Bodge, in your 
intercourse with him, showed no mechanical skill or inventive 
capacity, and that you wondered at the time you were build- 
ing the machine, where he got the ideas of the rubber diaphragm 
and hydraulic pressure? 

[ Objected to — as before.'] 

Ans. I think I remarked to Prof. Carmichael, at one of our 
interviews, that Mr. Bodge was not much of an inventive genius 
and I didn't consider him a great mechanic, but had never before 
learned where he got the idea ; that is, what I mean to be 
understood by this, that I never before learned where he got the 
idea, until this controversy came to my ears. 

X 178. Did you not further state to him, at this time, that 



ASA J. LYON. 151 



the work your firm did in making these machines was charged 
to the Fibre Ware Company, and that when the machines 
reached the point that they appeared to promise success, Mr. 
Bodge came to you and wanted you to make the charges to him 
personally, and that you refused to do so, not considering it 
honest or honorable on Bodge's part, as up to that time he had 
represented the work was being done for the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, and that he was in their employ and working for their 
benefit ; and that thereupon Bodge became very angry with 
you, or statements to the above effect ? 

[ Objected to — as immaterial, irrelevant and improper, and the 
question is further objected to that it does not refer to matters 
brought out on direct examination, that the interrogating counsel 
is making the witness his own, and the question is therefore mani- 
festedly leading.'] 

Ans. What do you mean by " at this time ? " 
X 179. I mean by the words "at this time," at the time of 
one of the conversations that you had with Prof. Carmichael, 
as previously stated by you. 

\_Same objection as to JT Int. 176.] 
\_Question 178 re-read for the fourth time.] 

Ans. Mr. Bodge came to me some time during the progress 
of the third machine, after a part of this bill on this machine 
mentioned had gone into the Fibre Ware's office at Waterville, 
and asked me why I bad charged this machine to the Fibre 
Ware, as he had supposed it was for himself. I told him I 
hadn't understood to the contrary but what this machine was 
being built for the Fibre Ware Company, and as part of the 
bill had gone into the company's office, I didn't propose to re- 
call said bill and change the charges on the books, but should 
go on and finish said machine and charge it to the Fibre Ware 
Company. He seemed to be a little out of sorts at that time, 
but on the following day he came to me and requested me to 
go on with the work as far as it was possible, as it was all right. 



152 ASA J. LYON. 



X 180. On the piece of paper that in your answer to Int. 
156, you say that Prof. Carmichael brought to your house one 
evening, having a sketch upon it that you were unable to say 
was made by yourself or Mr. Bodge, and. which piece of paper* 
in your answer to Int. 157, you say was the only piece of 
paper on which you saw any sketches which you even thought 
might have been made by Mr. Bodge, will you please state 
whether or not you saw on that piece of paper any red and 
blue lines, such as are made by pencils similar to Bodge Ex- 
hibit No. 1 ? 

Ans. The piece of paper that Prof. Carmichael carried 
away from my house, that had the sketch or sketches referred 
to, had no other lines other than lines made by a common lead 
pencil, that came to my view at that time. The two pieces of 
paper that Prof. Carmichael left at my house, I have no recol- 
lections of seeing any red or blue pencil marks on those, still 
I have never examined carefully in regard to this. 

X 181. If there are any red and blue lines upon the piece 
of paper referred to in Int. 180, were they placed there by 
you? 

Ans. I think not. That is if they refer to any line or lines 
describing any part of a pail machine. 

X 182. Were you in the habit of using a red and blue 
pencil ? 

Ans. According to my best recollections and belief, I bought 
a pencil at one time of 0. W. Fulsom, in Oakland, that was 
painted blue on the outside, a round pencil, quite a large pen- 
cil for coarse marking, with the red lead in one end, blue in 
the other, as I recollect it now, to complete some draughts of 
hay-press drawings, of which I wanted tos how the full details on 
one drawing, so that the men would be able to work by it with- 
out making all the details separately. This pencil I used but a 
short time before some one was kind enough to take it away. 
Haven't had anything of the kind since. 



ASA J. LYON. 153 



X 183. When was it that you purchased the pencil above 
referred to by you ? 

Ans. I am not able to state whether this was in the sum- 
mer of '82 or '83, as I made drawings of hay-presses both years. 

X 184. Were there any drawings of hay presses made by 
you on the piece of paper brought to your house by Prof. Car- 
michael, and refeired to in your answer to Int. 156 ? 

Ans. All the drawings or marks that I recollect of now was 
a pencil sketch of a part of a pail machine which I have no 
idea but it represented part of, with the figures attached there- 
to, and a little ways from this, as I recollect, on the same side 
of the paper, towards the corner, was a section undoubtedly 
started for something of the same kind, but not finished. There 
were no figures on this sketch, as I now recollect it. This is 
all the drawings o: pencil sketches that I recollect of seeing on 
said paper at this time. 

X 185. In the course of your conversations with Prof. Car- 
michael, at Waterville, as before stated by you, did you make 
any statement as to having seen any colored sketches, or such 
drawings made by Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. I never did to him or any one. 

X 186. At the close of the conversation with Prof. Carmi- 
chael, or during the course of it, when the matter of Mr. 
Bodge's reputation and honesty was discussed, did you state to 
Prof. Carmichael that from your long experience with Mr. 
Bodge, you would not be surprised at any act of deceit or treach- 
ery on his part, or words to that effect ? 

[ Objected to as manifestly improper. And motion is made to 
strike the question from the record."] 

Ans. I did not. 

X 187. When did you forward or send to the Indurated 
Fibre Company the patterns referred to in your answer to Int. 
164? 

Ans. These patterns, according to my recollections now, were 
20— P. O. 



154 asa J. lyon: 



shipped to Foster & Brown, Saccarappa, during the month of 
March or April, 1884. 

X 188. At the time Mr. Bodge and Mr. Bates went to see 
you about four weeks ago, as stated in your answer to Int. 167, 
and your misunderstanding with Mr. Bodge was adjusted, was 
it then arranged that you should appear as a witness for Mr. 
Bodge in these Interference proceedings? 

Ans. It was not ; and I would like to say right here and 
now, that the adjustment of the misunderstanding wasn't 
adjusted nor talked of until after all other conversation had 
been finished, and he, Bodge, was about to leave the shop, when 
I approached him on the subject. 

X 189. When was it finally determined that you should 
appear as a witness for Mr. Bodge in these proceedings '! 

Ans. I never had any idea until after coming here that I 
was a witness for Mr. Bodge — supposed all the time I was a 
witness for the Indurated Fibre Ware Company, as I had 
learned previous to this that Mr. Bodge had disposed of his 
entire interest to the Indurated Fibre Ware Company. 

X 190. When was it first arranged that you should appear 
here as a witness for the Indurated Fibre Company ? 

Ans. It was the last days of the week previous, or the first 
day of the week that I arrived here, on the 26th day of April. 

X 191. What do you mean by arriving here ? 
Ans. I mean to be understood by this, on the day which I 
arrived in Portland and came to this office. 

X 192. Since that time have you been giving substantially 
your whole time to the Indurated Fibre Company in matters 
connected with this case ? 

Ans. Since I have been here I have examined bills that 
were sent from the office of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard to the 
Fibre Ware Company's office in Waterville. 

X 193. Since the 26th day of April last, how much time 



ASA J. LYON. 155 



have you given to your regular business as a pattern maker 
and machinist in the employ of Webber & Philbrick ? 

Ans. Haven't struck a clip. 

X 194. Who has paid, or is to pay, for your time and 
services since that date ? 

Ans. I don't know. That matter has never been men- 
tioned to me in regard to pay, or who will pay. S. W. Bates, 
formerly of Waterville, requested me to be here at this office 
April 26th. I came here according to his wishes, and, as he 
stated to me at the same time, the probabilities were they 
would want me to testify in this matter about that day. 

X 195. Whom did Mr. Bates claim to represent in making 
this arrangement? 

Ans. I had understood from him, or some one, that he 
represented the Indurated Fibre Company of Portland, Maine. 
I think it was him that stated to me the company at the time, 
but didn't say what company. 

X 196.. Did you leave your employment and family in 
Waterville, and come here in the interest of the Indurated 
Fibre Company, prior to the commencement of the taking of 
this testimony, and during its progress, without any intima- 
tion as to compensation for your time and services ? 

[ Objected to — because it does not specify what testimony, 
whether for Carmichael, or on behalf of J8odge.~\ 

Ans. I left my business in Waterville, and family in 
Oakland, without any understanding with regard to compensa- 
tion whatever. That matter as to pay, and how much, has 
never been mentioned in my presence before now. 

X 197. Where have you been living since you have been 
in Portland ? 

Ans. I have sort of been boarding round. I stop at the 
Preble House nights — sometimes getting my supper and break- 
fast, but have always got my breakfast there when I stopped 
over night. Other meals I have generally taken at Johnson's 



156 ASA J. LYON. 



Saloon on Exchange Street. When I haven't been boarding at 
these places mentioned, I have been boarding with Mrs. Lyon, 
in Oakland. 

X 198. Were you present here during, the examination or 
cross-examination of Prof. Carmichael in this case ? 

Ans. I was not. 

X 199. What witness was under examination when you 
first came here into this office, after examination had com- 
menced ? 

Ans. I am not able to state who was being examined when 
I first came in here ; from recollections now, I should say Mr. 
Eollins, but am not certain. 

X 200. Has all your time been subject to the orders of the 
Indurated Fibre Company, since the 26th day of April last ? 

Ans. I have been at this office most every day, but have 
spent considerable time looking about the city. 
[Cross-Examination closed.] 
[Adjourned to 2 p. m., same day.] 



2:30 P. M. 
He-direct Examination oy Mr. Lange. 

R D. 201. You were asked on your cross-examination 
with regard to certain conversations Prof. Carmichael had with 
you, relating to the Bodge invention or machines, and you gave 
the number of conversations as being three. Will you please 
state when these conversations occurred ? 

Ans. During the latter part of April, 1886. 

E. D. 202. At the first conversation, did the Professor make 
himself known to you, and had you known him previously ? 

Ans. After he had commenced his conversation with me, a 
young gentleman that I didn't know at that time, stepped along 
and introduced Prof. Carmichael to me. I afterwards under- 
stood the young gentleman was Dr. Hill, of Waterville. 



ASA J. LYON. 157 



E. D. 203. What, if anything, did the Professor give as the 
object of his first interview with you ? 

Ans. He claimed to me that he gave Mr. Bodge the idea of 
the rubber diaphragm, and the invention, of which Mr. Bodge 
had procured the patent for making pails, as I now recollect it. 

E. D. 204 At which of these conversations did he have 
the drawings or sketches to which you have previously re- 
ferred ? 

Ans. This was the third or last interview that I had with 
Prof. Carmichael ? 

E. D. 205. Did he state where he had obtained them ? 

Ans. I think he did. 

E. D. 206. Where? 

Ans. I think he said he obtained them of Mr. Bragg, at 
Hubbard, Bragg & Company's shop. 

E. D. 207. Did he state to you the object he had in looking 
up the drawings relating to the Bodge invention or machines ? 

Ans. I think he didn't mention that. 

E. D. 208. Did he give any reason to you for leaving part 
of the papers or drawings he had at your house and taking the 
balance away with him ? 

Ans. He did not. 

E. D. 209. Do yon know, from anything he said to you, dur- 
ing those conversations, of any reason for his examining into the 
history or facts pertaining to the Bodge invention or machines ? 

Ans. Nothing, except as he told me he gave Mr. Bodge the 
idea. 

E. D. 210. In your answer to X Int. 199, you stated in 
substance that you were not able to say who was first being 
examined when you first came into this office, but from recol- 
lection you should sa\ it was Mr. Eollins. Can you state when 
you first saw Mr. Eollins on the stand under examination? 

Ans. I first saw Mr. Eollins on the stand on Friday, after 



158 ASA J. LYON. 



I came here on Wednesday, of the same week, two weeks ago 
to-day. 

K. D. 211. In view of your last answer, will you please 
state when you first came to this office, or to the city of Port- 
land, in any matters pertaining to this case or your appearance 
here as a witness ? 

Ans. I left home May the 26, 1886, on the 9:30 train, and 
arrived here in Portland on the same day about 12:30. 

R D. 212. During your examination have you stated other- 
wise ; and if yea, have you anything to say in the matter ? 

Ans. I have stated in my previous answers that I arrived 
here the 26th day of April, which was a mistake of mine; but 
as a matter of fact, it was the 26th day of May, 1886. 

R D. 213. If you have any explanation to offer, as to how 
the mistake occurred, please to make it? 

Ans. I had in my mind, at this time, that my first inter- 
view with Prof. Carmichael was on or about the 26th of April, 
1886, and sort of placed my answer on that month instead of May 
26, which I should have said, 

R D. 214. State positively, if you can, how many weeks 
you have been in the city of Portland in this present case ? 

Ans. I arrived here two weeks ago to-day, about 12:30 in 
the afternoon. 

E. D. 215. Please state whether or not you are directly or 
indirectly interested in the Indurated Fibre Company, and in 
the present controversy between Prof. Carmichael and Joseph 
G. Bodge. 

Ans. I am not interested any way with the Indurated Fibre 
Company, but am here, as I understand it, as a witness or evi- 
dence in this case for them. 

R D. 216. Will you please state whether or not you ex- 
pect to receive any pay or other emolument tha-. the ordinary 
fees allowed in Court cases for travel and attendance, for your 
attendance as a witness in this cause ? 



WILLIAM A. BODGE. 159 



Ans. I expect to receive fees that the law allows and nothing 
more, except as it might come from the generosity of the firm, 
if they see fit. 

Be-Cr 'oss-Examination by Mr. Libby. 

R X 217. What wages do you earn per day as a skilled 
machinist and patten maker in your business? 

Ans. Since 1884, during the dull times, I have worked for 
25 cents an hour, and part of the time for 27/^ cents — as I 
have been in the habit of working by the hour since 1865, and 
not by the day. 

E. X 218. Were you summoned as a witness in this case, 
to appear here at Portland, or did you come without a sum- 
mons ? 

Ans. At the time I saw Mr. Bates, a few days before I came 

here, he said I had better come here on Wednesday, and asked 

me if I would come. I told him I would if nothing prevented. 

That is all the summons I received. 

ASA J. LYOK 



June 9, 1886, 3:30 a. m. 

William A. Bodge, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., of 
Counsel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. William A. Bodge ; 47 years ; Brunswick ; Superin- 
tendent of the Androscoggin Pulp Company. 

2. Where were you living in the summer of 1882 ? 



160 WILLIAM A. BODGE. 



Arts. Brunswick, Maine. 

3. Is Joseph G. Bodge a relative of yours ; if so, how is he 
related ? 

Ans. He is a brother of mine. 

4. In the month of July, 1882, was Joseph G. Bodge in 
Brunswick, to your knowledge ? 

Ans. He was. 

5. At what place in Brunswick did you first see him, as yon 
remember, in the month of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. Met him at the mill. 

6. About what time in the day ? 
Ans. About noon. 

7. Will you state, if you please, what, if anything, Mr. Jo- 
seph G. Bodge did the^e at the mill ? 

Ans. I don't remember that he did anything. 

8. Where did he go from the mill ? 

Ans. Went to Mr. Bangs', where I boarded at the time. 

9. Did any one accompany him — if so, who ? 
Ans. I think I did. 

10. What did he do at Mr. Bangs' ? 
Ans. Took dinner with me. 

11. Do you know where he went after dinner ; if so, where ? 
Ans. I harnessed my horse and carried him to Mr. Car- 

michael's. 

12. Leave him there ? 
Ans. Yes sir. 

13. Did Mr. Joseph G. Bodge take dinner with you at any 
other time in the summer of 1882 ? 

Ans. No sir. 

Gross-Examination oy Chables F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Cakmichael. 

X 14. What day of July, 1882, was this, that your brother 
took dinner with you in Brunswick ? 



WILLIAM A. BODGE. 161 



Ans. July 11, 1882. 

X 15. Was he frequently in Brunswick, during that year? 
Ans. No sir, I don't remember of seeing him there any 
other time that year. 

X 16. Are you positive about this ? 

Ans. Yes sir, I am. 

X 17. Do you remember of explaining to Prof. Carmichael, 
in 1882, why your brother, Joseph G-, Bodge, did not call upon 
him at the time of one of his visits there, in connection with 
matters of the Treatment House? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 18. Do you remember of making such an explanation to 
Prof. Carmichael at any time ? 

Ans. I think the question was asked me at one time, but 
what time I don't know. I don't remember. 

X 19. How, then, can you say that it was not in the year 
1882? 

Ans. No sir, I think not. 

X 20. Did you misunderstand this last question ? 

Ans. I did. 

X 21. Will the Examiner please read to the witness Int. 
19, in connection with his answer to the previous inter- 
rogatory ? 

[Int. 19 repeated.'] 

Ans. I can't say. 

X 22. How are you able to fix this date as July 11, 1882, 
that your brother dined with you ? 

Ans. I fix it from the fact of boarding where I did and 
other circumstances connected with that month — that year. 

X 23. Explain how those facts and circumstances fix it to 
your mind ? 

Ans. From the fact that I never knew of his being there 
any other time than that month or year. 
21— P. o. 



162 WILLIAM A. BODGE. 



X 24. You have referred to the fact of boarding where you 
did, as fixing that date. How does that fix it ? 

Arts. It was all the place I boarded that year, or that 
month? 

Ans. How does that fix the date in July as being on one 
day in that month, rather than another ? 

Ans. Because his dinner was paid for that day in that 
month. 

X 26. What record of that fact have you ? 

Ans. I haven't any of my own. 

X 27. What other facts and circumstances referred to in 
your answer to Int. 22 fixes the date in your mind ? 

Ans. I can't remember of any. 

X 28. When did you first learn that it was important to 
fix this date in July ? 

[ Objected to — assuming knowledge on part of witness not 
shown. ] 

Ans. The question was asked me if I remembered my 
brother being there in July — I don't know how long ago. 

X 29. Who asked you the question ? 

Ans. I think Mr. Brown did. 

30. Which Mr. Brown ? 

Ans. I won't be certain as he asked me the date. It was 
Charles D. Brown. 

X 31. What did he ask you ? 

Ans. I don't remember the precise words. He asked me if 
I remembered my brother being out there any time those years. 

X 32. What years ? 

Ans. I don't know whether he named '81, 2 or 3. I don't 
remember particularly about it. 

X 33. When did you first learn that it was important to 
fix this date in July., 1882, and from what source did you learn 
it? 

[ Objected to — same as last objection.] 



WILLIAM A. BODGE. 163 



Ans. That was the first I knew anything about the dates. 
I began to look over the books to see if I could find anything. 

X 34. Tf you don't know whether he named the year 1881, 
1882 or 1883, as indicated in your answer to Int. 32, how did 
you know what to look for? 

Ans. I didn't know. 

X 35. When did you first learn what you wanted to look 
for ? 

Ans. I think it was some two weeks ago, I found where 
his dinner was paid for the 11th day of July, 1882. 

X 36. Is that what you were asked to look for? 

Ans. It was not. 

X 37. Did you look to see what dinners you had paid for 
in the year 1881 ? 

Ans. No, I didn't. 

X 38. Did you look to see what dinners you had paid for 
in the year 1883 ? 

Ans. No, I was keeping house. 

X 39. Who else, besides Mr. C. D. Brown, has talked with 
you as to this date in July ? 

Ans. No one, of this particular date. 

X 40. Who has talked with you about any other date in 
July? 

Ans. My brother Joseph has asked me to see if I could find 
any other dates, of any time he was there. 

X 41. When did he talk with you ? 

Ans. I think it was two weeks ago. 

X 42. What date did he say he wanted to show he was in 
Brunswick in July, 1882 ? 

[ Objected to — as assumption.'] 

Ans. He did not name any date to me. 

X 43. Why then did you say in your answer to Int. 40, 
" My brother Joseph asked me to see if I could find any other 
dates of any time he was there " ? 



164 WILLIAM A. BODGE. 



Ans. I said so, because he asked me. 

X 44. What did you mean by the word " other " in that 
answer — other than what date? 

Ans. Any other date than the one that was referred to at 
the time we were talking — than the one that had been found, 

X 45. What date was referred to at the time you and your 
brother Joseph G. Bodge were talking, as indicated in your 
last answer? 

Ans. We found that his dinner was paid for July 11. 

X 46. Where did you find that his dinner was paid for on 
that date ? 

Ans. Found it in a little old memorandum book. 

X 47. Whose book ? 

Ans. My wife's. 

X 48. What was the entry you found ? 

Ans. Just a minute of where his dinner was paid for and 
the amount. 

X 49. How did the entry read ? 

[ Objected to — calling for contents of writing and not best evi- 
dence.'} 

Ans. I can't remember just how it read, because it wasn't 
my writing nor book. 

X 50. How long ago did you see it ? 

Ans. I saw it two weeks ago, I think. 

X 51. Can't you remember the form of an entry you saw 
two weeks ago ? 

Ans. I think it was : " Paid Mrs. Bangs 35 cents for din- 
ner of J. G. B." — I think that was the way it read. The date 
was also there, July 11, 1882. 

X 52. Who paid for the dinner ? 

Ans. My wife. 

X 53. Was the dinner charged to anybody ? 

Ans. I don't know as to that. I presume it was. 

X 54. To whom do you " presume " it was charged ? 



WILLIAM A. BODGE. 165 



Ans. To me, if anybody. 

X 55. Is the Mr. Charles D. Brown referred to in your an- 
swer to Int. 30, one of the officers of the Androscoggin Pulp 
Company, which employs you as Superintendent, and the same 
gentleman now present at this examination in this room ? 

Ans. It was, and he is now present in this room. 

X 56. Who are the other officers of the Androscoggin Pulp 
Company besides Mr. Charles D. Brown ? 

Aits. Mr. C. A. Brown, E. B. Denison, Mr. Bussell, of Law- 
rence — I don't remember his given name. I think it is William 
A. Bussell. 



Be-Direct Examination by Me. Lunt. 

E. D. 57. Do you remember the fact of the death of Charles 
Bodge, son of Joseph ? 

Ans. I do. 

R D. 58. Do you remember when it occurred? 

Ans. No. I couldn't say the exact day. It occurred in 
July, 1882— the 21st or 22d. 

B. D. 59. Do you remember, by reason of that circum- 
stance, that your brother Joseph called upon you in the month 
of July, 1882, before the death of his son ? 

[ Objected to — as leading. ~\ 

Ans. I do. 

[Adjourned to 10 a. m., June 10, 1886.] 



June 10, 1886, 10 a. m. 
Ee-Cross-Examination by Mr. Libby. 

B. X 60. Did you see your brother again on the 11th day 
of July, after you carried him to Prof. Carmichael's house ? 



166 NELLIE E. BODGE. 



[ Objected to — as not proper Me- Cross, simply a resumption of 
cross-examination.] 

Ans. I don't remember of seeing him. 

E. X 61. Do you know when he left Brunswick that day 
or which direction he took on leaving Brunswick — east or west? 

\_lSame objection^ 

Ans. I do not. 

R X 62. When did you first recall the fact that your 
brother visited Brunswick, before the death of his son, in July, 
1882? 

Ans. Some two weeks ago. 

E. X 63. Can you also recall the fact that he also visited 
Brunswick, after the death of his son, in 1882 ? 

Ans. I cannot. 



WILLIAM A. BODGE. 



June 10, 1886, 10:15 a. m. 

Nellie E. Bodge, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed by Wilbuk F. Lunt, Esq., of Counsel for 
Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age and residence ? 
Ans. Nellie E. Bodge ; 33 years ; Brunswick, Maine. 

2. Are you a married lady ; if so, will you give the name 
of your husband ? 

Ans. Yes. My husband is William A. Bodge. 

3. Were you the wife of William A. Bodge in 1882 ; and 
if so, where did you reside at that time ? 

Ans. I was, Brunswick. 



NELLIE E. BODGE. 167 



4. In the month of July, 1882, state whether you were 
keeping house, or what your household arrangements were. 

Ans. I was boarding. 

5. With whom were you boarding ? 
Ans. Mrs. Bangs. 

6. Where is Mrs. Bangs ? 
Ans. In California. 

7. Will you state whether or not Joseph G. Bodge, a party 
to the record in this case, took any meal with your husband in 
Brunswick, Maine, in the year 1882, at your boarding place; 
and if so, whether he took more than one meal with him while 
you were boarding with Mrs. Bangs ? 

Ans. He took one meal there. He only took one meal 
there. 

8. When was it that Mr. Joseph G. Bodge took that one 
meal ? 

Ans. July 11, 1882. 

9. Did you, at that time, keep any memorandum, or make 
any entry at that date, in relation to the circumstance of Jo- 
seph G. Bodge taking the meal alluded to ? 

Ans. I did. 

] 0. Will you please produce it ? 

Ans. I will, and do. 

11. Will you please read the entry ? 

Ans. July 11, 1882, " Paid Mrs. Bangs .35 for dinner for J. 
G. B." 

12. Do you recollect the fact of Joseph G. Bodge being 
there at your boarding place to dinner, and did you eat with 
him? 

Ans. I do recollect it, and I did not eat with him. 

13. Why not? 

Ans. The table was full, and I let him have my place. 

14 Have you any objection to allowing your memorandum 
book to be taken and used as an exhibit in this cause ? 



168 NELLIE E. BODGE. 



Am. I have. 

15. Will you allow the Examiner to copy the consecutive 
dates of the entries from the top of the page in which this date 
occurs to August 1st, on the next page ? 

[Counsel for Prof. Carmichael claims that the original 
memorandum booh should go in as a part of the case, having 
been produced by the witness as a record of a transaction which 
fixes a date ; and that a copy of a memorandum is not admissible, 
and that the original book must be produced for inspection to 
enable the Patent Office to judge of the character and value of 
the testimony.] 

[Counsel for Mr. Podge replies, that the memorandum book 
contains entries made by a married lady relating to her private 
concerns, and out of deference to her, and also her rights to the 
memorandum booh as her private property, which she declines to 
deliver to be used as an exhibit in this case, they are unable to 
introduce the booh itself in evidence; that the same, with the con- 
sent of the deponent, which she has given, may be inspected by 
counsel on the other side, who is now availing himself of the 
opportunity.'] 

[ Counsel for Prof Carmichael insists that if the testimony of 
this witness is to stand as apart of the case, the original memoran- 
dum booh, as a matter of right, shall go in as an exhibit in the case, 
the same as any other document or paper which is used as a record 
to establish any fact material to the issue / and that the in- 
spection, which is offered to counsel for Carmichael and which he 
has a right to exercise, cannot do away with the necessity of in- 
spection by the Examiner who is to pass upon this case in the 
Patent Office. Pee further claims that it is material that the Ex- 
aminer should see the manner i?i which this memorandum-book, 
so called, has been heptf and the uniformity of the handwriting 
of the different entries which appear upon its pages / and also 
the irregularity of dates under which entries are made, to enable 
the Examiner to judge of the value and genuineness of the en- 
tries.'] 

[Counsel for Podge, in view of the objections made by Carmi- 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 169 



chaeVs counsel, has, by special request, obtained deponents con- 
sent to permit the memorandum book to be introduced as an ex- 
hibit ; and in view of that vnlhdraws his last interrogatory, and 
introduces the entry on said booJc contained at the bottom of the 
page upon which the calendars for January and February, 1882, 
are printed.~\ 

[Said book is introduced and marked: "Bodge Exhibit, 
Memorandum-Book of Nellie E Bodge, — A. H. B., Bx'r, June 
10, 1886."] 

16. In whose handwriting are the enteries contained in 
this memorandum-book ? 

Ans. Mine. 

[Direct Examination closed.] 

\_N~ow that the memorandum book has been made an exhibit in 
the case, counsel for Prof Carmichael does not deem it necessary 
to cross-examine the witness."] 



NELLIE E. BODGE. 



June 10, 1886, 3 p. m. 
Joseph G. Bodge, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in inswer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by James H. Lange, Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit: 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 

Ans. Joseph G. Bodge ; 50 years old ; Gorham, Me. ; Mill- 
wright and Builder. 

2. Are you the Joseph G. Bodge, one of the parties to this 
Interference ? 

Ans. I am. 

22— P. O. 



170 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



3. Where did you reside in the year 1881, and what was 
your occupation at that time ? 

Ans. I resided in Gorham, and my occupation was a mill- 
wright. 

4. Previous to that year, had you had any experience in the 
construction of Pulp Mills ? 

Ans. I had. 

4. What was the nature of such experience, and where was 
such a mill or mills constructed ? 

Ans. I did work on several mills, one in South Windham, 
one at Midde-Jam, in Gorham, one at Brunswick, Me., and one 
at Benton, Me. 

6. During the year 1881, what knowledge, if any, had you 
relating to machines for forming hollow articles from pulp ? 

Ans. I saw the Chase machine in February, 1881, in com- 
pany with Mr. C. A. Brown, of Portland. 

7. At what place din you see this machine ? 
Ans. At Gorham, Me. — Great Falls, Gorham, Me. 

8. What was the purpose of this Chase machine ; or in 
other words, for what was it used ? 

Ans. For making pails from pulp. 

9. Will you please describe briefly the main parts, or features 
of that machine, as it was at the time you saw it ? 

Ans. There was a cylinder and former inside of the cylinder, 
the shape of the inside of the pail — I made a mistake there — 
the shape of the outside of the pail, I should have said. Our 
pulp was got into the cylinder and suction applied, also a rub- 
ber bag was used to put into the pulp, to shape the inside of the 
pail and take out a part of the water. 

10. Please state how the rubber bag took out part of the 
water, as referred to in your last answer. 

Ans. The way I have always remembered it, it had a fine 
gauze in the bottom and a valve top of that. This was intro- 
duced with a handle into the pulp. When it was forced down, 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 171 



the water came up into the bag ; when it was taken up the 
valve closed and left the pulp inside of the former in the shape 
of a pail. 

11. What next, if anything, was done in the formation of 
the pail, after the rubber bag had been removed as you stated ? 

Ans. I don't think there was anything, with the exception 
of taking it out with an adjustable former, covered with wire 
gauze. 

12. After the pail had been formed in the machine, and re- 
moved therefrom, as you have stated, was anything further 
done to it ? And if so, what was the next step ? 

Ans. It was taken from that former, and put on to racks to 
dry, as I remember. 

13. Please state when you entered the employ of the Fibre 
Ware Company, at Waterville, Me. 

Ans. March 1, 1882. 

14. Between the time, when you saw the Chase machine at 
Great Falls, Me., in February, 1881, and the commencement of 
your employment at the Fibre Ware Company in Waterville, 
did you again see a Chase machine ? 

Ans. I think in September, 1881. 

15. When you saw the Chase machine in September, 1881, 
was a pail formed in the former, and with the aid of a rubber 
bag, having a valve in its bottom, in the same way as when 
you saw the machine in February, 1881 ? 

Ans. I did not see a pail formed in September, if I recollect 
right, but saw one after it was formed by Mr. William Chase. 

16. Was the machine different in construction in September, 
1881, from that of February, 1881 ? 

Ans. I don't think it was much. 

17. Did the process for forming the pail, and all the steps 
incident thereto, up to the time when the pail was put on the 
shelf to dry, differ ? 

[ Objected to — as it already appears by the witness 1 testimony 



172 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



that he did not witness the process of forming a pail at his second 
visit, September, 1881.] 

Ans. I don't think it did, very materially. 

18. At any of the times when you were at Great Falls and 
saw the Chase machine, were presses of any kind there ? 

[ Objected to — leading.'] 

Aiis. There was. 

19. What were they used for ? 

Ans. Pressing pails, after being formed. 

20. Please describe briefly how the pails were pressed after 
they were formed. 

[Objected to — as the method of forming pails by the Chase 
machine at the otdy times at which this witness saw the process, 
as appears by his testimony, has been fully described / and it does 
not appear when it was that the presses, now added to his pre- 
vious testimony, were seen by him, or that he witnessed their oper- 
ation.'] 

Ans. I did not see a pail pressed ; but can describe the ma- 
chine by which it was done. 

21. Please describe the machine. 

Ans. It was a machine with a heavy iron casting at the top, 
with four rods through that connecting with a bed-plate at the 
bottom ; another heavy casting with the form of the outside of 
the pail in this casting. This casting was raised and lowered 
by a jack, so called, by hydraulic pressure. The pail was put 
in to this iron mould, raised up by hydraulic pressure to the 
upper casting, and locked by castings that revolved on these 
four rods. There was a rubber bag in the upper casting by 
which hydraulic pressure was used to press the pail on the in- 
side. 

22. Can you state when you first knew of this press or ma- 
chine, as being at the mill at Great Palls ? 

Ans. It was in 1881 — spring and summer. 

23. Will you now please describe briefly, if you can, the 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 17; 



construction of the former that you saw in the Chase machine 
in 1881 ? 

Ans. The outside form of the casting was cast in ribs — 
openings. There was an inside former, with a brass ring at 
the top. That had gauze fitted to, I think, perforated brass in 
the shape of the outside of a water pail. 

24. Do you know whether Mr. Chase took out Letters 
Patent in the United States, for a pail machine, substantially 
such as you have described and which you saw at Great Falls ? 

[Objected to — as a matter to be shown by the record, and not 
by the testimony of this witness.'] 

Ans. I have heard that he did ; but never examined his 
claims. 

[Counsel for Carmichael moves to strike out the last answer. .] 

25. I call your attention to a printed copy of U. S. Letters 
Patent granted to W. L. Chase, for a Method of and Apparatus 
for Forming Articles from Pulp, dated April 12, 1881, and 
numbered 240,091, and ask you whether said patent illustrates 
in the drawings thereof, substantially the ribbed former with 
inside gauze former, to which you have alluded in your pre- 
vious examination ? 

[Objected to — as the question introduces a description not em- 
bodied in the witness' testimony by the use of the word "inside" 
and as to the character of the paper with which comparison is 
asked to be made.] 

Ans. I see on this cut what represents the ribbed former. 

[Counsel for Mr. Bodge desires to note on the record that he 
shall use at the hearing in the case, a Patent Office copy of the 
Chase Patent, dated April 12, 1881, and numbered 240,091.] 

[Counsel for Carmichael requests that the paper referred to 
by the witness and embodied in his answer by comparison, shall 
make a part of the case, and be marked by the Examiner the 
same as any other exhibit shown to a witness ; and if not done } 
that testimony relating to it shall form no part of this record] 



174 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



26. Prior to the commencement of your employment with 
the Fibre Ware Company, had you or not conversed with Mr. 
Chase regarding his machine for forming pails from pulp, 
which you saw at Great Falls ? 

Ans. I had frequently. 

27. In such conversations, did he or not talk freely with 
you regarding said machine and the method of forming pails 
which he employed ? 

[ Objected- to — leading.'] 

Ans. I think he did. 

28. Had you, prior to said employment at the Fibre Ware 
Company, other sources of information regarding the construc- 
tion and operation of the Chase machine ? 

Ans. I had. 

29. Will you please state when you first gave your time and 
attention to machines for forming pails from pulp. 

Ans. I think it was in April or May, 1882, if I understand 
the question right. 

30. Did you construct a model or machine embodying any 
ideas of your own regarding the formation of pails from pulp ? 

Ans. I did. 

31. Please describe, briefly, the general construction of such 
model or machine ? 

Ans. I had a small machine made — a model with a cylinder 
and former inside — made of tin — wire gauze put over the 
former. I think I had a plunger fitted into the cylinder to 
press down over the former to form the pail. 

[Adjourned to June 11, 1886, 9:30 a. m.] 



June 11, 1886, 9:30. 

32. Will you please state whether or not you made pails on 
this machine ? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 175 

Ans. I did. 

33. Describe, briefly, the formation of a pail on said ma- 
chine. 

Ans. The pulp was put into the cylinder, then we applied 
suction underneath to draw the water from the pulp, forced the 
plunger down at the same time to form the pail. 

34 When was this machine made ? 

Ans. Some time in April, or the 1st of May, 1882. 

35. At that time, and previously thereto, what was the 
general nature of your employment or your duties, at the Fibre 
Ware Company ? 

Ans. I was Superintendent of the mills. 

36. Where had you been employed previous to your em- 
ployment at the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. The last employment, previous to my employment at 
the Fibre Ware Company, was at Wendall, Mass. 

37. About how long were you there employed, and for what 
were you employed ? 

Ans. I was there some 3 or 4 weeks ; employed to put in a 
pen-stock, wheels, into a paper mill, at that place. 

38. Where were you employed previous to your employment 
at Wendall? 

Ans. At Great Falls, Gorham, Me. 

39. What doing ? 

Ans. I was employed there to superintend the construction ; 
putting in a pen-stock, water-wheels, and other machinery of 
the mills now there. The mills and machinery were to be used 
for the purpose of making pails from pulp. 

40. About when were you employed at Great Falls doing 
the work indicated in your last answer ? 

Ans. I was employed in Benton, Me., to superintend the 
building of a large pulp mill. I think February, 1881. I re- 
ceived a letter from Mr. C. A. Brown, of Portland ; that he had 
taken hold of the pail mill at Great Falls, Gorham, Me., and 



176 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



wanted me to come down and put on an rddition on to that 
mill at Grorham Great Falls. I came down, saw him at his 
office on Exchange Street, and we went out there to look the 
mills over, and see what was the best thing to be done, in order 
to give them more room. 

41. At that time, what was the name of the mills at Great 
Falls, Me., to which you have referred ? 

Arts. I think it was the Presumpscot Pulp Ware Company 
Mills. 

42. While you were there employed in putting in a pen- 
stock, &c, as you have stated, what machines for making pails 
from pulp, to which you have referred, were put into said 
mills ? 

Arts. I can't state how many ; but Wm. L. Chase put in 
some machines for forming pails, by his process. 

43 Under whose superintendence, or direction, were the 
shafting, belting, etc., erected in said mills ? 

Ans. I had some of the shafting put in — I am not able to 
sta'.e how much. 

44. Had you anything to do with putting up the shafting 
and belting, and other mechanical work connected with or to 
be employed in connection with the Chase machines for making 
pails in said mills ? 

Ans. The machines for making pails were set up by — or 
under the direction of Wm. L. Chase. The ma*ln shafting, I 
think, and pulleys, were put up by men under my superintend- 
ence. 

45. Was it during this, your employment at the Presump- 
scot Fibre Ware Company's Mills at Great Falls, that you were 
brought in contact with Wm. L. Chase, and had conversations 
with him concerning his machines performing pails ? 

[ Objected to — leading.] 

Ans. It was. 

46. At the commencement of your employment with the 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 177 



Fibre Ware Company, on or about March 1, 1882, as you have 
stated, what articles made from pulp were being manufactured 
by said company ? 

Ans. Principally wash basins. 

47. Prior to the construction of your tin pail machine, re- 
ferred to in your previous testimony, and the making of pails 
thereon, had any machine, or machines, been constructed or 
used in the Fibre Ware Company's mills for making pails ? 

Ans. None that I ever saw or heard of. 

48. What was the size or condition of the pails which you 
made on this tin machine, at or about the time of its construc- 
tion, in April or 1st of May, 1882 ? 

Ans. I should judge they would hold about a quart and a 
half. The condition was similar to ware formed on the Chase 
machine. 

49. What has become of this tin pail machine? 
Ans. It was destroyed by the fire, I think. 

50. What fire do you refer to ? 

Ans. When the Fibre Ware Company's mills were burned 
in the spring of 1884. 

51. Do you know Joseph W. Libby, now of Old Orchard, 
Me.? 

Ans. I do. 

52. Do you know where he was employed in the month of 
May, 1882, and a month or two previously thereto ? 

Ans. He was employed by me to work for the Fibre Ware 
Company, in Waterville, Maine. 

53. Do you know when that employment ceased, and if so 
give the date. 

Ans. On the last day of May, 1882. 

54. In the month of May, 1882, where did you reside ? 
Ans. I boarded with Mrs. Pinkham, in Waterville, Maine. 

55. Do you also know where Mr. Joseph W. Libby lived at 
that time ? 

23— p. o. 



178 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. He boarded at the same place. 

56. Will you please state whether or not, prior to the ter- 
mination of Mr. Libby's employment at the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, on May 31, 1882, he worked at said company, under 
your personal direction ? 

Ans. He did. 

57. Please state whether or not you conversed with him 
regarding your matters pertaining to machines for making pails 
from pulp ? 

Ans. I did, very frequently. 

58. After his leaving the employ of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, do you know whether Mr. Libby remained at Water- 
ville ? 

Ans. I think he remained one day. and worked for Mrs. 
Pinkham. 

59. Where did he then go, if you know? 
Ans. He went to his home in Biddeford, Me. 

60. Prior to the time when Mr. Libby left Waterville, as 
you have stated, did you disclose to him anything concerning 
or pertaining to any invention of yours in machines for making 
pails ? 

Ans. I did. 

61. Please state fully what you disclosed to him regarding 
any invention of yours of the kind referred to. 

[ Objected to — as calling for disclosure in conflict with the 
preliminary statement of the witness filed in these Interference 
proceedings.^ 

Ans. I disclosed to him all the ideas that I could think of. 
Knowing him to be an honorable, truthful and upright man, I 
was not afraid to disclose any idea which came into my mind. 

61. Will you now please state what ideas of yours you dis- 
closed to him? 

Ans. I disclosed to him the ideas that I had in regard to 
the imperfect formation of the basins, then being manufactured 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 179 



at the mills of the Fibre Ware Company, at Waterville, Me. 
On very careful study and attention, I formed an idea that the 
imperfect formation of the basins were caused by not getting a 
right angled pressure, at all points, at the same time in which 
it was being formed. I turned my attention to devise some way 
to bring about that result. Having had experience in pulp 
manufacture, knowing considerable of the nature of its working, 
I could not think of anything that a right angled pressure at 
all points could be obtained, in pressing liquid pulp, other than 
using rubber with hydraulic pressure. I disclosed my ideas to 
Mr. J. W. Libby, in the month of May, 1882, — at quite a num- 
ber of times. 

63. In these conversations, or disclosures on your part to 
Mr. Libby, was any reference made to the Chase machine ? and 
if yea, state what was said in relation thereto. 

Ans. I talked with Mr. Libby very often about the Chase 
machine ; described to him, as nearly as possible, what they 
were then doing at their mills, at Great Falls, Gorham, Me. I 
said to him, that they were forming pails by the use of a suc- 
tion pump and other devices. They took them from the process 
of forming, and as soon as they could be removed from the first 
former, they were placed in a die or mould, and a rubber bag 
was used with hydraulic pressure to press the pail on the inside. 
I said to him that I thought that the idea was wrong, from the 
fact that it rolled the fibre down the sides, near the bottom, and 
broke a great many of them. I told him that my idea was to 
form from the outside with a rubber bag, and by hydraulic 
pressure, while the pulp was about the consistency then being 
used in the formation of basins, then being manufactured at the 
Fibre Ware Company's mill, at Waterville, Me. 

64. Please state whether or not you disclosed to Mr. Libby 
the means by which your ideas could be carried into effect, or 
how you intended to carry said ideas into effect. 

[ Objected to — as leading / and specially objectionable in this 



180 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



case where the questions are addressed to a witness who is a 
party to this Interference. Counsel for Carmichael requests 
that the examination shall be so conducted as to call for what teas 
said, and not by an examination in piece-meal by the use of lead- 
ing questions.'] 

Ans. I don't remember that I disclosed any ideas of that 
nature. 

65. Please state whether or not Mr. Joseph W. Libby was 
present, at any time when you made a pail or pails on the tin 
machine, to which you have referred. 

Ans. I think he was. 

66. State what you next did, after the completion of this 
tin pail machine. 

Arts. I suppose you mean in the line of experiments on 
pails. 

67. I do. 

Ans. I commenced on an experimental machine, partly of 
wood and partly of iron. 

68. State, if you can, when said machine was begun and 
completed. 

Ans. It was begun in the early part of June, 1882, and 
completed in the middle or latter part of the same month. 

69. Will you please describe the construction of said ma- 
chine, as completed in the latter part of June, 1882 ? 

Ans. It was composed of a base turned of wood, cylinder 
turned out in stave form, of wood. The former shaped the 
inside of the pail somewhat — put up in stave form. This 
former was hooked with small round iron, I judge about /i inch 
in diameter — I haven't examined it lately. They were driven 
on to the former from a % to % of an inch apart. Between 
these were holes bored through the wood for drainage. This 
former was bolted on to the bed first mentioned. In the bed 
was turned a groove. I should judge, from not examining it 
since it was last used, to be about 1% inches in diameter. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 181 



There was an iron casting made in circular form, in segments, 
I think, to form a circle, which had a groove in it corresponding 
with the one in the bed. These put together made a circle or 
opening, about \)4. inches in diameter. In the iron casting 
there were small holes drilled, connecting with this opening. 
The cylinder was fitted to the top of this casting. There was a 
hole in the bottom of this bed-plate where there was a pipe 
screwed in, leading to a suction-pump. There was another hole 
through the bed-plate into the opening before described ; the 
pipe screwed in, connecting with a small hand-pump. It had 
a jacket made of galvanized iron, perforated with small holes. 
Outside of that was a wire gauze put on — a jacket, of No, 50 
mesh. 

70. State what had a jacket referred to in your last answer 
by the word it ? 

Ans. The former that forms the inside of the pail. 

71. Where is that machine ? 

Ans. I see it before me in this office. 

72. Will you point it out to the Examiner, so that it can be 
properly referred to ? 

Ans. I will. It is Bodge Exhibit No. 2. Part [A] is the 
cylinder ; part [B] is the bed-plate ; part [C] is a hoop shrunk 
on to the bed-plate to keep it from splitting ; part [D] is the 
galvanized iron jacket ; part [E] is the iron casting, in two 
segments ; part [D'] is the staved former and iron rings. 

73. Will you now please describe the purpose and func- 
tion of the segmental iron casting, [E] [E] as applied to the 
machine at the time of its completion in June, 1882? 

Ans. That was put there, for the purpose of trying some 
experiments and ideas which I wanted to test, whereby the 
stock could be put in between the former, and could not be put 
in from the top of the cylinder, to form a pail. 

74. To what do you refer by the word " stock," in your last 
answer ? 



182 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. I mean the fibre made from the wood, and a certain 
amount of water, which we call stock, for articles of hollow 
ware. 

75. Will you please state how the stock was to be manip- 
ulated after being put into the cylinder through the segmental 
ring, or part marked [E] [E]. 

Ans. One of my ideas was, at the time, to try an experi- 
ment, when I could get the things to do with, that I had dis- 
closed in the month of May to Mr. Joseph W. Libby. 

76. What " things " did you require " to do with," as indi- 
cated in your last answer ? 

Ans. I required a thin rubber bag — that was what I wanted. 

77. For what purpose did you require a thin rubber bag ? 
Ans. I wanted to test my ideas, partly — so far as I could, 

with the machine I had — about getting right-angled pressure 
on the pulp which formed the side of the pail. 

78. How did you intend to apply and use the rubber bag 
which you required to conduct your experiments with that ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. By confining it between the iron casting and the bot- 
tom of the cylinder. 

79. Then describe fully how the pulp or stock was to be 
introduced into the cylinder, with relation to the former and 
this rubber bag which you required ? 

[ Objected to — as calling for a matter previously answered, and 
not descriptive of the machine as completed in the latter part of 
June, 1882, but with reference to future intentions, so called, of the 
witness. ] 

Ans. The stock was to be introduced through a pipe, lead- 
ing to the opening that is partly in the bed-plate and partly in 
the casting, marked [E] [E], in two segments. That was forced 
in by a small hand-pump, and came up through the small holes 
in the iron casting between the former and rubber. 

80. After the machine, Bodge Exhibit No. 2, was finished 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 183 



in the latter part of June, 1882, as you have described, did 
you apply a rubber bag to it ? 

[ Objected to — leading. ~\ 

Ans. I did not, in the month of June. 

81. State whether or not you applied a rubber bag to said 
machine, at any time ? 

Ans. I did not. 

82. State whether or not you, at any time, applied rubber 
to said machine ? 

[Same objection.'] 
Ans. I did. 

83. When first, and what form ? 

Ans. I think July 11th, along in the evening, after 5 o'clock 
in the afternoon. I put on a piece of dental rubber. 

84. July 11th of what year? 
Ans. 1882. - 

85. State fully how this piece of dental rubber was applied 
to your machine, Exhibit No. 2, on the evening of July 11, 
1882. 

Ans. It was put on between the bottom of the cylinder 
marked [A], and the iron casting marked [E] [E], in two seg- 
ments, and the cylinder clamped down to make a tight joint. 

86. Where was the machine, Exhibit No. 2, when you 
applied this dental rubber to it, at the time you state ? 

Ans. It was about the middle of the mill, lengthwise, a 
little to the left of the center going in at the front door — if I 
remember right — near the machine for forming the basins. 

[Adjourned to 2.30 P. M., same day.] 



2.30 p. m. 
87. Where did you get the dental rubber which you applied 
to your machine, Exhibit No. 2, on the afternoon and evening 
of July 11, 1882 ? 



184 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Arts. I got it at Mr. Jones', dentist, on Main St., Water- 
ville, Maine. 

88. How much did you pay for it ? 
Ans. One dollar ($1). 

89. If your machine Exhibit No. 2, with the former and 
segmental stock ring, was finished in the latter part of June' 
1882, why, if for any reason, did you not apply the rubber to 
it earlier than July 11th following ? 

Ans. Along the last part of June, and during the month of 
July, 1882, there was a time long to be remembered by me. 
The circumstances under which I had to contend makes it an 
eventful month. I had an only son that was sick unto death 
at that time. I had undertaken to bring out a new industry 
where there had been considerable money expended, and the 
company had not much money, as I understood ; aud I believed 
that I had conceived an invention that would make a success 
of their business. I used my utmost endeavors to bring out a 
successful result. The circumstance of my son's sickness occu- 
pied a good deal of my time, and the condition of the company 
at that time was such that I did not call upon them for any- 
thing except what I could get close at hand. I did not know 
at that time where I could get a rubber bag without additional 
expense; consequently I did not make any effort at that time. 

90. When did you purchase the dental rubber which you 
applied to your machine on the afternoon or evening of July 
11, 1882? 

Ans. I purchased it on July 11th, as I remember, in the 
afternoon. 

91. Why, if for any reason, did you not purchase before July 
11th, a piece of dental rubber to be applied to your machine ? 

Ans. I did not know that the dentist kept as large a piece 
as would go on my machine. 

92. Before your purchase of the piece of dental rubber from 
the dentist at Waterville, on July 11, 1882, had you ascertained 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 185 



that a piece of dental rubber of sufficient size to go on your 
machine might be obtained from dentists. 

Ans I don't remember of having any such knowledge, and 
I didn't suppose that dental rubber would be sufficiently strong 
to hold the amount of liquid pulp required to make a pail. I 
had thought something about it in noticing toy-balloons, which 
I suppose are made of the same material. 

93. Please state whether or not you obtained any informa- 
tion on July 11, 1882, that dental rubber of sufficient size for 
your machine might be obtained from dentists. 

[ Objected to — as previously asked and answered in Int. 92, and 
answer. .] 

Ans. I did. 

94. From whom, if any one ? 

Ans. Prof. Henry Carmichael, of Brunswick, Me., a party 
to this Interference. 

95. Where were you when you obtained this information ? 
Ans. I was sitting on his piazza in Brunswick, Me. 

96. Upon what day did you arrive at Brunswick, on the 
visit during which you obtained this information ? 

Ans. On Monday, July 10, in the afternoon, I think. 

97. When did you leave Brunswick after you had obtained 
this information, and where did you go ? 

Ans. I left Brunswick about 2:30 P. M., for Waterville. 

98. What was the purpose or occasion of this visit to Bruns- 
wick ? 

Ans. In relation to treatment for ware, and plans for build- 
ing a Treatment-House at Waterville. 

99. Where did your stop over the night of July 10, 1882, 
after your arrival at Brunswick ? 

Ans. At my youngest brother's — Andrew T. Bodge. 

100. Eelate fully what you did at Brunswick in the fore- 
noon of July 11, 1882. 

Ans. I think I went to Henry Carmichael's house, the first 
24— P. O. 



186 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



thing I did. I had previously been there ; so I supposed be 
knew my business. We talked about the Treatment-House, the 
manner in which it should be constructed, and about the ovens , 
how the heat should be circulated into them, and other details 
connected with the same. If I remember right, we went with 
his team to the Treating-House — looked around there. He 
showed me what fhey were doing, and his method of sand-pa- 
pering — his machi e that he had there ; also looked at the ket- 
tles he used, the method of hanging the basins in the ovens, 
and the different parts of the process which they had to go 
through. If I remember right, we went from there to Tops- 
ham, Me. I never was at that place before, nor never have 
been since, till about three weeks ago. I described the road to 
my brother, and where we stopped and turned round at that 
at that time. 

[ Counsel objects to conversation with his brother three weeks 
ago.'] 

He took me in his team — took me over there by the same 
road. I found that it was as I described to my brother — a 
watering trough near the Eailroad Bridge, where we turned 
round. I came back — or we did. I stopped at the mill — the 
Androscoggin Pulp Company's mill, in Brunswick, Me. — and 
went to dinner with my brother, at his boarding place. Some 
time after dinner, as I remember, my brother drove me up to 
Carmichael's house. I remained there until it was time to go 
to the train, which leaves Brunswick about half-past 2 p. m. for 
Waterville. 

101. Did you see or meet any person at the Treatment 
House ? 

Ans. I think I remember of seeing Mr. Peterson there. 

102. Any one else, if you know ? 

Ans. I don't remember at that time of seeing any one else. 
There was others there. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 187 



103. What was the object or purpose of the drive to Tops- 
ham with Prof. Carmichael, if you know ? 

Ans. I don't know. 

104. Give the name of your brother with whom \ou took 
dinner, and who drove with you to Prof. Carmichael's house, 
after dinner. 

Ans. William A. Bodge, Superintendent of the Androscog- 
gin Pulp Company's Mill, Brunswick, Maine. 

105. State whether or not he was then married, if you know. 
And if yea, whether you met his wife on that day. 

Ans. He was married ; and I met his wife on that day, 
July 11, 1882. 

106. Give her name. 
Ans. Nellie E. Bodge. 

107. State whether or not she dined with your brother and 
yourself, at your brother's boarding place, on that day. 

Ans. She did not. The tables were full, and she gave up 
her place to me at the table. 

108. State whether or not you paid for your dinner on that 
day. 

Ans. I did not. 

109. Why ? 

Ans. I was invited there by my brother, and I supposed he 
or his wife would pay for my dinner. 

110. State whether or not, during the year 1882, you dined 
with your brother and wife — or your brother — at that boarding- 
place, at any other time. 

Ans. I did not, if I remember right. 

111. Eelate what conversation took place between Prof. 
Carmichael and yourself, during your drive to and from Tops- 
ham on July 11, 1882. 

Ans. I don't remember anything more than general conver- 
sation. 

112. Eelate what conversation took place between Prof. 



188 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Carmichael and yourself, at his house, on the afternoon of July 
11, 1882, after your brother had driven you there, and before 
you left on the 2:30 train, or thereabouts, for Waterville. State 
also how it was brought about, and what, if anything, was done. 

Ans. I think the most of our conversation was in relation 
to the building and operation of a new Treatment-House, then 
talked of being built at Waterville, Maine. After we had got 
through with that, I had a little time to spare ; we sat down 
out on his piazza. I remember distinctly about his making a 
remark that during his vacation, which then, as I understood, 
was about to be, that he was going to do some experimenting 
with pulp, in forming hollow ware. I don't remember what 
remark I made, if any ; but I do remember distinctly what 
he said to me about the machine that he had in his mind. He 
said that he thought that pails could be made by a centrifugal 
machine which would lay the fibre and form the ware perfectly. 
I made the remark that he would have to form from the inside. 
He said that that was the way to do it. I told him that every 
one that I had talked with that did not know anything about 
the forming of ware, had that same idea of forming from the 
inside. I thought for a moment that he was considerably 
nettled, and I went on to explain what I meant, telling him 
about the Chase process and the ware they were forming from 
the inside, and their trouble that they could not seem to get 
over ; and then I told him my idea was that pails could not 
be formed and pressed sufficiently firm any other way than 
from the outside. 

He asked me if I had tried my method. I told him I had, 
and explained to him what I had tried, and told him that the 
only way to form a perpendicular side was to get a right-angled 
pressure on the pulp as it was forming. I told him that I knew 
that from my experience, and what I had learned in the forma- 
tion of basins. I also told him that a rubber bag, in connec- 
tion with hydraulic pressure, was the only thing that I could 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 189 



think of that would do it. He asked me if I had tried it. I 
told him that I had not, because I did not have a rubber bag. 
He said that it could be tried with dental rubber. I told him 
that I thought that it would not expand enough to hold a suffi- 
cient amount of liquid pulp. He said that he thought a piece 
of that size would expand enough to try the experiment. I 
asked him where I could get a piece large enough. He said 
that it could be got at the dentist's on the street in Brunswick, 
Me. I took out my watch, and found that I did not have 
time to go there, and reach the train in season to go to Water- 
ville, at half past 2 p. m. He said that he would get me a 
piece and send it to me by mail the next day. I told him that 
if he would, I would pay for it, and be obliged to him. 

On the train, going to Waterville, I thought of this thing. I 
thought — it being about Commencement Time — that the Pro- 
fessor might not remember it. I thought that I would try the 
dentist's in Waterville. I left the train on its arrival in Water- 
ville, went down Main street, stopped at a dentist's by the name 
of Fales, I think. He had a piece about eight inches square, 
as I remember it now. It was not large enough. I went from 
there to Jones' — another dentist — on the same street ; told him 
what I wanted. He went to a small drawer, opened it and 
took out a half a yard of thin dental rubber. I told him my 
doubts about its being strong enough; but he said it was very 
elastic, from the fact that he had not had it but a very short 
time. He said he paid $1 for it and I might have it for the 
same, as he could get plenty of it from runners that were along 
there every few days. I told him that if it wasn't too much 
trouble, to get me some more and a little thicker, if he could. 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael objects, that the witness is not 
making his answer responsive to the question, which was as to 
what conversation took place between Prof. Carmichael and 
himself on the afternoon of July 11, 1882/ and if the matters 
happening subsequently to that time, are to be introduced, it 
should be so done by proper inquires.] 



190 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



I took that rubber, half a yard. Started directly for the 
mill. In going to the mill, I passed my house where I then 
lived, on the corner of Mill and Pleasant Sts., Waterville, Me. 
My wife was watching for me, as Ihd been gone for consider- 
able time, to see my son at Gorham, Me. When she saw me, 
she came out to the street to meet me. After inquiring about 
my son, she asked me — 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael objects to conversation between 
the witness and his wife / and to the manner of examination, 
which allows a witness to go on and relate matters which have 
not been inquired about, and whose admissibility he has no 
opportunity to object to, not being given in response to any in- 
quiry / and he requests the Magistrate, if the matters embodied 
in the With interrogatory have been answered, to require the fur- 
ther examination of the witness to progress in an orderly and 
regular manner, so as to save his rights ] 

[Counsel for J. G. Bodge state that by the last interrogatory, 
it was sought merely to get the witness to state what vms said and 
done between Prof Carmichael and the witness on the afternoon 
of July 11, 1882, at the former 's house ; and the witness is 
asked not to continue any statements that he intended to make, 
following the preceding matter * to enable counsel to inquire by 
questions as to events occurring after he left Prof. Carmichael. 
Counsel for JBodge wish to state further, on their own account, 
that the witness continued with his answer, and did not give 
counsel opportunity to question him as to events occurring after 
the conversation referred to, without interrupting the witness in 
the answer he was giving ; and they refrained from so inter- 
rupting the witness, on that account.'] 

[Adjourned to June 12, 1886, 9 A. M.] 



June 12, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 
113. Confining your answer to what occurred between 
Prof. Carmichael and yourself, on the afternoon of July 11, 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 191 



1882, before you took the 2:30 train for Waterville, will you 
please state what was said and done, if anything, in relation 
to any method that you had tried before said conversation, as 
referred to in your answer to Int. 112 ? 

Ans. I have previously stated what I remember distinctly 
was said, and what was done, while sitting on the piazza. I 
described some things that I had been doing in the way of ex- 
periment, and described this machine, Exhibit No. 2, here before 
me. As I was describing of it, I took out my pencil, and felt 
for a piece of paper in my pocket, to illustrate it. The Profess- 
or handed me an envelope, common size, as I remember — looked 
clean and light colored. I marked on that envelope, with my 
common lead pencil which I always carry, a description of this 
Exhibit No. 2. 

114. What color was the envelope that the Professor handed 
you, if you remember ? 

Ans. As I remember it, it was a common white envelope. 

115. What size was it that you referred to in your last 
answer but one, as " common size " ? 

Ans. I don't know the exact bigness of it — a common letter 
envelope. 

116. I hand you an envelope with certain marks or figures 
upon it. Will you please look at same, and state whether said 
envelope was used by you to illustrate your machine, Exhibit 
No. 2, at the time of the conversation with Prof. Carmichael on 
the afternoon of July 11, 1882. 

[ Carmichael' 's Exhibit A, handed to witness by the Examiner.'] 

Ans. I have examined the envelope and I positively state 
that I never saw it before in my life, until I saw it in this 
building, in the office of Messrs. Symonds & Libby. 

117. State about how long ago that was when you saw said 
envelope in the office of Symonds & Libby, or upon what occa- 
sion it was. 



192 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Arts. It was on the occasion of the examination of Frof. 
Carmichael, some few weeks ago. 

118. State whether or not in the month of July, 1882, you 
ever carried or used a pencil marking red at one end and blue 
at the other. 

Ans. I don't remember of ever carrying such a pencil at 
any time in my life. 

119. State whether at your interview with Prof. Carmichael, 
you had a red and blue pencil, or saw such a pencil there. 

Ans. I did not. 

120. State whether at any interview with Prof. Carmichael, 
at his house in the year 1882, if you had more than the one in- 
terview referred to previously, you used, carried or saw such a 
pencil at his place in Brunswick. 

Ans. I did not. 

121. If, in your conversation with Prof. Carmichael at any 
time during the 11th day of July, 1882, you referred to the use 
or intended use of a plunger in connection with your machine 
Exhibit No. 2, which machine you described to him, please 
state what you said to him as to the construction and use of 
said plunger. 

Ans. I don't remember whether I described the plunger to 
him or not at that time. 

122. If before this interview of July 11, 1882, you had con- 
structed or used a plunger in connection with your machine 
Exhibit No. 2, please describe such plunger. 

Ans. As I remember it, the first use of that machine was 
used with a suction pump. The stock was put into the cylin- 
der, suction applied, and it formed the pulp on the former in 
the shape of a pail. I think afterwards I had a plunger made 
of soft wood — pine — to go into the cylinder. This plunger, I 
think, was hooped. I do not recollect how long after we first 
used that machine that this plunger was made. 

123. Please state if you can, whether or not this plunger 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 193 



which you have described, was constructed or used before or 
after your interview with Prof. Carniichael, on July 11, 1882 ? 
Ans. I do not remember. My time was so taken up about 
that time, in getting to Gorham as often as possible to see my 
son, and trying quite a number of different experiments in 
making the business that we already had show as well as I 
possibly could to the company, I might not remember distinctly 
what dates, nor how these different experiments were tried. 

124. You have stated that on the morning of July 11th, 
you went to Prof. Carmichael's house and thence to the Treat- 
in g-House. Will you please state what conversation you had 
with him at his house in the morning, before going to the 
Treating-House, and where it took place ? 

Ans. The conversation that I had with Prof. Carmichael 
was in relation to a new building to be built in Waterville, 
Maine ; also about the process of treatment of hollow ware 
that we was then making at Waterville. The interview was 
in a room leading from the piazza. I think we crossed a hall 
going from the piazza to the room. In the room I remember 
there wjs a table, I should judge near the center; I suppose 
that was his office or study. 

125. From what direction or place had you come upon 
your arrival in Brunswick, on the afternoon of July 10, 1882 ? 

Ans. I left my son's home at Gorham, Me., that day, Mon- 
day, for Brunswick. 

126. Will you please state whether or not you had any 
other interview, at Brunswick, with Prof. Carmichael in 1882, 
during which you made any sketches relating to, or illustrating 
your invention in pail machines, or your particular machine, 
Exhibit No. 2 ? 

Ans. I had one other interview with him. I do not remem- 
ber of referring to any machine or machines. 

127. When did this interview last mentioned take place? 
Ans. I have been searching diligently for information on 

25— P. 0. 



194 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



that point to substantiate my recollection, and find that it 
occurred on the 7th of July, 1882, in the afternoon. 

128. At what place in Brunswick did this interview take 
place between Prof. Carrnichael and yourself, on the afternoon 
of July 7, 1882 ? 

Ans. At his home in Brunswick, Me., and at the Treatment- 
House, and in a hall close by the Treatment-House, that Prof. 
Carrnichael said that he owned. 

129. From where did you come, and when did you arrive in 
Brunswick on July 7, 1882 ? 

Ans. 1 came from Waterville, Me. Arrived in Brunswick 
at about half-past eleven a. m. 

130. Where did you take dinner? 

Ans. At the restaurant in the depot, in Brunswick. 

131. Where did you go from there ? 
A?is. I went to Prof. Carmichael's house. 

132. On that occasion did you know the location of Prof. 
Carmichael's house in Brunswick ? 

Ans. I did not. 

133. How did you ascertain where he lived ? 

Ans. When the train arrived in Brunswick, I got out on the 
platform ; I saw my youngest brother, Andrew T. Bodge ; he was 
coming on that train to Portland. I asked him if he could tell 
me where Prof. Carrnichael lived; he said he could not tell me 
the house, but gave me the direction and told me that I could 
inquire at stores near by and they would tell me. 

134 Why, if for any reason, did you go to Brunswick, Me., 
on the 7th day of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I went there to meet Charles D. Brown, of Portland. 

135. At whose request, if any one's, and how was there- 
quest made ? 

Ans. I don't remember how the request was made, but I was 
to meet him at Prof. Carmichael's on the arrival of the 2 p. m. 
train from Portland. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 195 



136. Upon reaching Prof. Carmichael's house did you see 
the Professor ? 

An". I did. 

137. Eelate what, if anything, occurred, and where it oc- 
curred at his house on the afternoon of July 7, 1882 ? 

Ans. I remember of an occurrence at his house, but I will 
not fix it on that day, but I think it was that day, of being in- 
troduced to Mrs. Cole, Prof. Carmichael's wife's mother. I re- 
member of another circumstance, of Mr. C. D. Brown, of Port- 
land, came there by appointment to meet me. 

138. Whereabouts at the Professor's house were you and 
the Professor on the afternoon of July 7, 1882, when Mr. C. D. 
Brown came there to meet you ? 

Ans. I think we were on the piazza, but the introduction 
to Mrs. Cole was in the room looking out on the piazza, sitting- 
room, I think. 

139. Where did you go from Prof. Carmichael's house, and 
who, if any one, went with you ? 

Ans. We went from his house to the Treatment-House, 
the Professor, myself, and Chas. D. Brown. There met Mr. 
Chas. B. Gardner, of Boston, Mass., and Hugh J. Chisholm, of 
Portland, Me. 

140. Where did you go from the Treatment-House, and 
who, if any one, went with you ? 

An?. We went into the Grange Hall ; we sat there quite a 
little while to get cooled off, as it was a very warm day, and 
warm in the Treatment-House. I said to Mr. Brown and Chis- 
holm that I thought that I ought to go to Gorham to see my 
son ; they told me to go, and call on the Professor when I came 
back, on my way back — and take plenty of time to get every- 
thing that I could in the way of knowledge about the Treat- 
ment-House that was to be built in Waterville, Me., and the 
way in which the ware was to be treated, and all the informa- 
tion that I could get on that subject. 



196 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



141. Did you go to Gorham to see your son upon leaving 
Brunswick ? and if yea, state when you left Brunswick, and 
how long you remained at Gorham, and where you went upon 
leaving Gorham. 

Ans. I left Brunswick on what is known as John Jewett's 
train in the afternoon, and arrived in S. Windham about 6 o'clock 
p. M. On the train going from Brunswick, Mr. Chas. B. Gard- 
ner, of Boston, accompanied me, and tried to pass me over the 
road free on his pass, which he had. Mr. Jewett, the conductor, 
did not see fit to do that, and I paid my fare. After arriving 
at my son's, in Gorham, I had some business at Great Falls, 
Gorham. Me. I hired a team of B. F. Bacon, of S. Windham, 
and went to Great Falls. I did not pay for the team when I 
returned, and he charged it to me. I have a bill of it in my 
pocket. 

142. Please answer the latter part of the previous question 
as to how long you remained in Gorham, and where you went 
upon leaving Gorham ? 

Ans. I remained in Gorham until noon, July 10, 1882, 
which was Monday. I left there for Brunswick, Me. 

143. Will you now please state how far Mr. Gardner, of 
Boston, accompanied you on the train, when you left Bruns- 
wick in the afternoon of July 7, 1882 ? 

Ans. Mr. Gardner accompanied me as far as the Boston & 
Maine transfer station, in Portland, Me. 

144. Were you at Prof. Carmichael's house at any time in 
July, 1882, other than on the 7th and 11th days of said month, 
to which you have previously testified ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

145. State whether or not you were in Brunswick, Me., at 
any time in July, 1882, after the 11th day of said month. 

Ans. I think I was. 

146. When? 

Ans. I think I was there on the 15th day of July, 1882. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 197 



147. Why were you there on that day ? 

Ans. One thing I was there for and did, I met my wife 
coming from Waterville. I left Gorham that morning ; my 
neighbor, Mr. Howard B. Cloudman, carried me to Gorham Cor- 
ner to take the Portland & Rochester for Deering, Me. ; con- 
nected there with the Maine Central going to Brunswick. 

148. Please state whether or not at any interview you had 
with Prof. Carmichael in July, 1882, he described to you, or 
spoke to you of any invention of his own other than what you 
have previously testified to. 

Ans. He did not. 

149. In your previous testimony, you have testified to dis- 
closing your invention to Prof. Carmichael on July 11, 1882 ; 
will you please state whether, before that date, you had spoken 
to others about your invention. 

[Form of the question objected to as not embodying a correct 
statement of the witness'' previous testimony. J 

Ans. I had. 

150. You have also testified that you disclosed your ideas 
concerning your invention to Joseph W. Libby ; will you please 
state to whom other than Prof. Carmichael and Mr. Libby you 
had spoken regarding your invention, previous to July 11, 1882. 

Ans. I disclosed my invention previous to July 11, to my 
brother, Elbridge S. Bodge, of South Windham ; also to my 
father, Thomas Bodge, of the same place. 

151. Please state when, previous to July 11, 1882, you dis- 
closed your invention to Elbridge S. Bodge, your brother. 

Ans. On the third day of July, 1882. 

152. Where, and under what circumstances, and state fully 
what you disclosed to him. 

Ans. I was at my son's in Gorham, Me., on the first day of 
July. I was at my father's with my brother, Elbridge S. Bodge, 
on the second day of July, 1882. I was with my brother 
again on the third day of July, 1882, on our way to Portland, 



193 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Me. We had to cross on our way from the Sebago Wood Board 
Company's mills what we call the Y, going to the depot at 
South Windham. I was talking with him about my invention ; 
when we got near the depot on the bridge, we stopped and 
leaned up against the railing and talked there for some time. 
I told him what I was doing, and explained to him my ideas 
about my invention, which I had got into shape in my mind, 
how to apply the hydraulic pressure, and substantially the 
working of my machine that I was going to have made at my 
earliest opportunity. We took the train and came to Portland 
that day. I talked with him further about it on the train 
going to Portland. After leaving the train we came up in the 
city. I went to Mr. Chisholm's office on Exchange Street — 
Hugh J. Chisholm — my brother was with me. I got a check 
from Mr. Chisholm for $20 — we went out together. I got it 
cashed as soon as I could go to the bank. I think I did not 
fold it, nor put it in my pocket, but carried it in my hand. We 
went to the fruit store on Exchange Street, just above Middle, 
on the left hand side going towards the city buildings, opposite 
the Post Office, Portland. I there bought a box of fruit which 
I think I paid $1.80 for. I got my brother to take it back to 
Gorham to my son. I left Portland for Waterville, I think, 
that night. 

153. In your last answer you say, " I told him what I was 
doing, and explained to him my ideas about my invention, which 
I had got into shape in my mind, how to apply the hydraulic 
pressure, and substantially the working of my machine that I 
was going to have made at my earliest opportunity." Will you 
please state fully what you explained to him, how you intended 
to apply the hydraulic pressure, and the working of your ma- 
chine that you were going to have made. 

Ans. I remember of explaining to him about the iron case 
and pipes going into it — screwed into it — attached to the pump, 
and I remember now distinctly a thing that was said at the 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 199 



time. He asked me how much pressure I thought of putting 
on ; I replied that there would be probably about twenty -five or 
thirty thousand pounds on the size of the pail. He remarked 
that I would have to have a very strong case to hold that 
amount of pressure. 

154. Please answer the latter part of the last question as 
to the working of the machine that you were going to have 
made. 

Ans. I explained to him about the manner of putting in 
the stock between the rubber bag and the former, through a 
circular ring which I then already had on a wooden machine, 
and applying hydraulic pressure through pipes between the 
iron case and rubber bag, to press the pail while forming against 
the former inside of the casing. 

155. State when you talked with your father, Thomas Bodge, 
regarding your invention, and where such conversation took 
place. 

Ans. It was on the second day of July, 1882, at his house 
in S. Windham. 

156. State fully what you disclosed to hirn regarding your 
invention. 

Ans. I talked with him substantially the same as I did 
with my brother, and I remember very distinctly that I talked 
so much about it, that my brother's wife, and my two sisters, 
and one of the husbands of my sisters left the room to get a 
chance, as I afterwards learned, to talk about something else. 
I remember distinctly of telling my father at that time, that if 
I got what I ought to out of it, that I would come home and 
go a cowing with him, and I would pay for what cows he 
bought. 

[ Counsel for Prof. Carmichael moves that the above answer 
be striken out as irrelevant and not responsive.~\ 

157. Is your father, Thomas Bodge, now living; and if yea, 
what is his age ? 



200 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. He is living. He is about 74 years old. 
[Adjourned here at 12:45 P. M. to 1:30 P. M. of the same day.] 



June 12th, 1:30 p. m. 

158. State the condition of health, at the present time, of 
your father. 

Ans. He is suffering considerably with rheumatism and 
don't go away from home much. 

159. What was his business or occupation in 1882 ? 

Ans. He was a farmer at that time. He used to carry on 
business in the city of Portland, as a Carpenter and Builder. 

160. Will you now please relate what, if anything, you did 
after you left Prof. Carmichael's house in Brunswick, on the 
afternoon of July 11, 1882, and up to and including the time 
when you first applied rubber to your machine, Exhibit No. 2, 
commencing at the point where you obtained the dental rubber 
from the dentist, Mr. Jones, as previously testified by you ? 

Ans. I left Mr. Jones' office with half a yard of dental rubber, 
going directly to the mill. In going to the mill I should pass my 
house on the corner of Mill and Pleasant Streets, Waterville, Me. 
My wife was watching for me, and came out to the street to meet 
me. After inquiriug as to my son's health, she asked me why I 
was detained so long in coming from the train. I told her that I 
had been round to Dr. Jones' office to get a piece of rubber to 
put onto my machine. She asked me if I was going to stop to 
supper, and I told her that I was not, as I wanted to go over 
and put it onto the machine, and try it as soon as I could. I 
went directly to the mill, and I do not remember whether I 
got it on that night and tried the machine or not. The next 
day, on the 12th of July, 1882, I was applying the rubber to 
this machine. I think we had some difficulty in fastening of 
it on to the cylinder, so that we could put it down over the 
former, and clamp it, and we cut a groove in the bottom of the 



JOSEPH G. EODGE. 201 



cylinder on the outside, and tied a string around to hold the rub- 
ber so that the tension in pressing of it over the former down 
onto the iron ring marked [E] [E], in two segments, would not 
pull it off from the cylinder marked [A]. I do not remember 
whether we worked the machine that day or not, but presume 
we did, as everything was there to work it with. On that day, 
July 12, 1882, I remember a circumstance which occurred, of 
first seeing Mr. Lyon, of the firm of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard. 
I had some notices posted on the doors " No Admittance." I 
was at work with this machine, doing something. I looked 
round and saw a man inside of the door of the office. I immedi- 
ately left the machine and went to him and asked him if he did 
not see the notice on the door. He said he did, but he had a 
curiosity to see what was going on in there. I noticed, and he 
appeared to me, like more than an ordinary man, and I asked 
him if he lived in Watei ville ; he said he lived in West Water- 
ville, and introduced himself to me and told me what his busi- 
ness was. I remarked to him that I thought that he was just 
the man I wanted to get acquainted with. I had a favorable 
impression of him, and at that time they were bothering me a 
good deal at Webber, Haveland & Philbrook's machine shop, in 
Waterville, Me., about doing my work, for the reason that they 
were not getting their pay very promptly. I had confidence in 
the business, and I upheld it for the company all I could. I 
should not have asked Mr. Lyon to have done work for that 
company, if I had thought that he would not get his pay. I 
talked considerable with Mr. Lyon about what I was doing. 

161. Eelate fully what you said to Mr. Lyon on the 12 th 
day of July, 1882, at the time you met him as stated in your 
last answer. 

Arts. I showed him my machine, Exhibit No. 2, and talked 

with him considerably about what I was intending to do ; 

showed him round the mill, basin-machines, finishing press, 

machine that is now before me marked Exhibit No. 2, machines 

2€— P. O. 



202 JOSEPH G. EODGE. 



for sand-papering basins, and our racks for drying up stairs, and 
told him that I thought we could give him considerable work 
before a great while. He said he would like to do it for us, and 
would make the prices as reasonable as we would get elsewhere. 
I remember that he remarked at that time that he worked him- 
self with his men, and claimed that that was quite an advan- 
tage in doing work, or words to that effect. 

162. In the beginning of your last answer you said, " I 
showed him my machine, Exhibit No. 2, and talked with him 
considerably about what I was intending to do." Will you please 
relate fully what you said to him, as to what you intended to 
do? 

Ans. I told him that I was going to have an iron machine 
made to make pails. I described to him, as nearly as I could 
at that time, about what kind of machine I was going to have, 
and how I intended to operate it. I described to him, as near 
as I can recollect, the machine I intended to have made, about 
the same as I did to my brother on the 3d day of July, on our 
way to Portland. I told him that I wanted to get at it as soon 
as I could, and would go over there to his place, and we would 
mark out some drawings for it. 

163. Where was his place of business or his firm's place of 
business, at that time ? 

Ans. At West Waterville, Maine, changed now to Oakland, 
Maine. 

164. Will you look at your machine, Exhibit No. 2, and 
state whether or not the groove which was made in the cylin- 
der or its bottom, to enable the rubber to be secured to said 
machine, now appears on said cylinder ? 

Ans. It does. 

165. State whether or not the dental rubber was on the 
machine, Exhibit No. 2, on the 12th day of July, 1882, before 
Mr. Lyon, of the firm of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, left the 
works at Waterville, where said machine was. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 203 



Ans. I think it was. 

166. When next did you see Mr. Lyon, and where ? 

Ans. I saw him soon after the 26th day of July ; that was 
the day that I returned from Gorham to Waterville, after the 
funeral of my son. I saw him at his place of business at 
West Waterville, Maine. 

167. At that time was any reference made to your con- 
templated iron machine, and if yea, state what was said or 
done. 

Ans. I went out there on that occasion to get a segment 
gear made and other parts of the gate rigging which had given 
out. I don't remember distinctly what other business, if any, 
we done that day. 

168. State when and to whom, if at all, you gave an order 
for the construction of your contemplated iron machine. 

Ans. I gave an order to Mr. Lyon, of W. Waterville, of the 
firm of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, I think about the first of 
August, 1882. 

169. Where was this order given ? 

Ans. At their machine shop and foundry at W. Waterville, 
Maine. 

170. How soon after you applied the dental rubber to your 
machine, Exhibit No. 2, was it that you used said machine, if 
at all, in the formation of pails from liquid pulp ? 

Ans. If I did not on the 12th, I did not till long trward 
the last of the month of July, 1882. 

171. Assuming, for the purpose of this question, that you 
did not experiment with your machine on the 12th of July, 
1882, why, if for any reason, did you not experiment until 
toward the last of said month ? 

Ans. It was my usual custom, after 6 o'clock, to go to the 
Post Office in Waterville for my mail. I went on the night of 
the 12th, as usual ; received a letter from Gorham, Me., saying 
that I had better come to Gorham at once. Knowing that Mr. 



204 JOSEPH G. EODGG. 



Chisholm was in the place that afternoon, I went up to the 
Elm wood Hotel, found him there, and told him that I had re- 
ceived a letter for me to come to Gorham on account of my 
son. He told me to go by all means. I left there the next 
morning, and I went to Gorham, telling my wife when I left 
home that I would write to her so that she could get the letter 
the next morning, which was Friday, July the 14th. I found 
my son so low at that time that I did not get time to write. 
In the evening I got my wife's sister to write the letter. My 
wife received it on the afternoon, as she afterwards told me. 

[ Counsel objects to statements of wife, and moves that the 
above be stricken out.~] 

I told my wife's sister to write to her — 
[Counsel objects to statements to wife's sister.~\ 
to come to Gorham at once. She took the 9 o'clock train Satur- 
day morning, 15th of July, 1882, for Gorham. I met her on 
the arrival of that train at Brunswick, Me., about half-past 
eleven A. M., July 15, 1882. We returned together to Gorham, 
where I had left that morning. We remained in Gorham until 
Monday, July 17th ; left Gorham at 12:30 P. M. for Waterville, 
arriving in Waterville about half-past four or five o'clock. The 
next day, 18th, I was at the mill in Waterville, Me. Do not 
remember whether I worked my machine, Exhibit No. 2, or not. 
I received a despatch that day from my brother, Elbridge S. 
Bodge, in S. Windham, to come to Gorham. I left Waterville 
on the morning train, about 9 o'clock, and came to Portland ; 
called to see Mr. Chisholm ; he told me that there was to be a 
meeting at the Fibre Ware Company's office, on Exchange St. ; 
would like to have me stay in the afternoon, as there was busi- 
ness of importance that might want some explanation from me. 
I stopped here and remained at the Falmouth Hotel, at his re- 
quest, till after the meeting adjourned. I went to Gorham on 
the 6 o'clock train. 

[Adjourned at this hour, 3:10 P. M., at urgent request of counsel 



JOSEPH G. DODGE. 205 



of Carmichael, who is obliged to be absent on business, 
and witness will continue his answer on Monday morning, 
June 14th, at 9:30 a. m.] 



June 14, 9.30 a. m. 

{Witness continues his answer] I remained at Gorham 
until the next day, the 20th. I asked if he could think 
of anything that I could get for him that he could eat. 
He said he didn't know of anything without he had a 
piece of water melon. He spoke in connection with that> 
about it being the first thing that Dr. Tanner took after 
his long fast. I took the half-past 12 train from S. Windham 
for Portland, and got a water melon ; came up to Chisholm's 
office, Exchange St. ; spent some time with him ; got a check 
from him that afternoon for $25. It was after banking-hours 
that I got the check. I put it into my pocket — did not get it 
cashed that day. I returned to Gorham on the 6 o'clock train, 
remained with my son until about 11 A. M. He appeared a 
little better. I wanted to go to Waterville, and I asked him if 
he was willing I should go and return the next day. This 
was the 21st day of July, that I am talking about. He seemed 
a little reluctant to have me leave him, but wanted me to be 
sure and return the next day. I called in Dr. N. M. Marshall 
and asked him, after he had talked with my son and we had 
stepped out to the door, if he thought there would be any change 
for the worse till the next day. He he said he didn't think 
that there would. He said he might live for a week or more, 
as he was appearing that day a little better than the previous 
day. I left Gorham for Waterville on the 12:30 train, arrived 
in Waterville about 5 o'clock P. M. ; went directly to my house 
and then to the mill. The next morning, the 22d, my wife 
came to the mill about 8 o'clock with a despatch from my 
brother, informing me that my son died at about 11 o'clock the 



206 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



night before. I got ready, myself and wife, to return to Gor- 
harn. On my way to the train, I stopped at the Peoples' Bank, 
Waterville, Me. ; got the check cashed that I had received of 
Mr. H. J. Chisholm, on the 20th, and myself and wife took the 
2 o'clock train that leaves Waterville for Gorham. We arrived 
at Gorham about half-past 6 P. M., and remained there till the 
26th day of July, when we returned to Waterville on that day. 

[I want to correct a mistake that I made on my examina- 
tion, which my attention was called to, in relation to giving 
the first order for an iron machine. I remembered after my at- 
tention was called to it, that Mr. Lyon was at the mill. I had 
a desk that was on a bench at the front end of the mill — the 
Fibre Ware Company's Mill at Waterville, Maine — where I kept 
my papers, draughting tools, &c, and I think that is where I 
give him the first sketches for an iron machine.] 

172. State what document is this now shown to you, and 
whether or not you can identify the same ? 

Ans. I identify the check as the one that was given me on 
the 20th day of July, 1882, by Mr. Chisholm, at his office, 
Portland, Maine. 

[Said check introduced and marked "Bodge Exhibit No. 13, 
Chisholm Chech of July 20, 1882— .4. JEL J)., Mt?r, June 14, 
1886."] 

173. In your experiments with machine, Exhibit No. 2, 
towards the latter part of July, 1882, as you have previously 
testified, state fully how said machine was used, in formation 
of pails, in connection with the dental rubber diaphragm. 

Ans. The dental rubber was put on to the cylinder marked 
[A], turned up on the outside, a string or wire — I guess we 
used both, not at the same time, but at different times — tied 
round in a groove made in the bottom part of the cylinder to 
hold the rubber from slipping off. The cylinder was then taken 
and placed down over the former on to the segment casting 
marked [EJ [E]. That left the rubber stretched over the 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 207 



former; then the cylinder was clamped to the bed marked [B]. 
The stock was put in underneath the bed into a groove in the 
base or bed in the iron casting — the corresponding one in the 
iron casting, I should have said. The stock was forced in by a 
common hand-pump, and come up through the perforations in 
the iron segment between the rubber and the former. After 
a sufficient amount of stock was put in , suction was applied, 
and that, in connection with the atmospheric pressure, which 
is about 15 lbs. to the square inch, formed the pail. 

174. Why did you not, in these experiments, apply hy- 
draulic pressure to the rubber of the machine, Exhibit No. 2, 
at that time, in the formation of pails ? 

Ans. I thought of putting in a head into the cylinder, but 
in doing that I should have to rig iron clamps, and be to quite 
an expense, to hold the cylinder on to the iron casting marked 
[E] [E]. I thought that I could get at what I wanted with 
that machine, without that expense. 

175. State, if you can, when your first iron machine ordered 
to be built at Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard's, was completed and de- 
livered at the works of the Fibre Ware Company. 

Ans. I think some time in the latter part of August, 1882. 

176. Please describe as clearly and briefly as you can, the 
construction of said machine, naming its parts. 

Ans. If I remember that machine, there was a former, the 
shape of the inside of the pail, perforated. There was an iron 
bed ; and I think there were two rings. There was a groove in 
them — the rings I mean. They, the rings, were put on to the 
bed. There was an iron dome come down over them. The 
dome was confined to the bed by bolts. There was a gauze 
jacket put on over the former, connection made with the 
opening of these stock rings with a hand-pump which we 
had. There was a pipe connected with another pump lead- 
ing from the bottom of the bed, for suction. This same 
pump, that put in stock, was piped to the dome to put on the 



20 S JOSTST^H G. LODGE. 



hydraulic pressure. These pipes were shut off by valves, so 
that I could use one pump for giving the hydraulic pressure, 
and also for putting in the stock. 

177. Please state how in that machine the stock was ap- 
plied to the former, in the formation of a pail. 

Ans. Stock was put in through a hand-pump, forced into 
the ring — the opening — and through perforations in this ring, 
in between the former and the rubber. After sufficient amount 
of stock was forced in, the pressure was applied to the outside 
of the rubber to form a pail. 

178. When did you first employ this first iron machine in 
the formation of pails ? 

Ans. I think we didn't use it till after the Treatme :t-House 
was completed and ready, for the reason that the mill was shut 
down during that time. 

179. State, if you can, when the Treatment-House was com- 
pleted and ready. 

Ans. I think somewhere in October or November — I could 
not tell without looking at the time-book. 

180. Had you anything to do with the construction of the 
Treatment-House ? 

Ans. I did. I gave it my personal attention through its 
construction. 

181. State, if you please, the purpose of the Treatment- 
House, the construction of which you gave your personal at- 
tention to. 

Ans. It was for the purpose of boiling linseed oil, mixed 
with rosin, to soak the ware in when it was hot. Then there 
were ovens to bake it after it was soaked in oil and rosin. 

182. Where was this Treatment-House built, and what 
ware was to be soaked and baked, as referred to in your last 
answer ? 

Ans. It was built about 50 feet from the Fibre Ware Com- 



JOSEPH G. EODG3. 209 



pany's Mills, in Waterville. We soaked basins there and 
baked them ; also some pails. 

183. Had you previously received any orders regarding the 
handling of this ware, previous to the treatment thereof in the 
Treatment-House, and if yea, what were the orders ? 

Ans. I received some orders from Mr. Chisholm, to be very 
careful not to put in any imperfect basins ; and I was also in- 
structed by him to be careful not to get any oil on them, es- 
pecially linseed-oil ; because it would spoil them. He said he 
got his instructions about that from Prof. Carmichael — that he 
must be very careful not to have them get round where there 
would be any oil come in contact with them ; and I cautioned 
the men to be careful. 

[Answer objected to — as hearsay testimony and irrelevant.'] 

184. Where is the first iron machine that was built by Lyon, 
Bragg & Hubbard, and completed as you have previously testi- 
fied? 

Ans. I do not know. 

185. Please state where it was when you last saw it. 

Ans. It was at the Fibre Ware Company's mill, at Water- 
ville, Me. 

186. Is that mill still in existence ? 
Ans. It is not. 

187. What has become of it ? 
Ans. It was destroyed by fire. 

188. When ? 

Ans. In the spring of 1884, 1 think. 

189. Do you know whether your first iron machine was in 
the mill at the time of the fire ? 

Ans. I don't remember, at this time, whether it was or not. 

190. Were you employed in, or connected with said mill 
at tta time of said fire ? 

Ans. I hadn't left the Fibre Ware Company's employ, but 
27— F. 0. 



210 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



I was not there at the time. I was at tha Eev. David Newell's 
house in Gorham, Me., at that time, stopping. 

191. When next, if at all, did you order an iron machine, 
after the completion of the iron machine to which you have 
already testified ? 

Ans. I think some time in January or February, 1883. 

192. Where was that machine made and when was it com- 
pleted ? 

Ans. It was made at Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard's, West 
Waterville, Me. I think it was completed in February, 1883. 

193. Please describe briefly the construction of said ma- 
chine. 

Ans. That machine was similar in construction to the first 
machine, with a larger dome — more space between the former 
and the dome. This machine had a rubber packing ring, that 
went down over the former to pack the joint after the former 
was placed up into the machine. 

194. What was the kind or form of rubber used in this 
machine, in connection with the former ? I do not refer to the 
rubber packing ring. 

Ans. We used a rubber-bag made something the shape of 
a hat. It had a rim. It come out between the bed and the 
dome — made a packing for that joint, and held the bag in po- 
sition. This bag was somewhat smaller than the former, so 
that in putting on the pressure it would not wrinkle. 

195. When was this second iron machine employed in the 
formation of pails ? 

Ans. I think in February or March, 1883. 

196. What was the condition of the pails made on said ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. We made some very good pails ; some of them I see 
in the room here now, that were made on that machine. 

197. Will you please point out to the Exaniner the pails 



JOSEPH G. EODGE. 211 



which you see in the room, and which were made on this sec- 
ond iron machine ? 

Ans. These four pails that I have here, I recognize as all 
being made on that machine. 

[Witness points out Bodge Exhibit No. 3, and three other 
pails, which are now marked '•'•Bodge Exhibits Nos. 14, 15 and 
16,— A. R. J)., ExW, June 14, 1886," respectively^ 

198. Please state if you can, when the pails, Exhibits Nos. 
3, 14 and 16, were made on the No. 2 iron machine? 

Ans. Them pails, I think, were made some time in February 
or March, 1883. 

199. State, if you know, where this No. 2 iron machine 
now is. 

Ans. I couldn't state. 

200. Do you know whether it was in the works of the Fi- 
bre Ware Company, at or about the time of the fire which de- 
stroyed said works ? 

Ans. It was. 

201. After the completion of the second iron machine, state 
when next, if ever, you ordered an iron machine to be built, and 
when completed. 

Ans. I ordered an iron machine to be built in the summer 
of 1883 — I can't state at what time in the summer. I think 
it was completed some time along in the early part of the fall 
of 1883. 

202. Who built said machine ? 

Ans. Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, West Waterville, Me. 

203. Do you know of a meeting of the stockholders of the 
Fibre Ware Company, which was held at the office of Hugh J. 
Chisholm, on Exchange St., Portland, Me., on the 7th day of 
September, 1883 ? 

Ans. I know that there was a meeting held somewhere 
about that time, I think, to which I sent some pails made on 
the same machine as Exhibits 3, 14, 15 and 16 ; and with 



212 JOSEPH G. EODGE. 



them was a seat for a baby-jumper, which was made on the 
same machine. 

204. Calling your attention to the photographs, Bodge Ex- 
hibits Nos. 4 and 5, will you please state what they repre- 
sent, if you know ? 

Ans. They represent a pail machine. 

205. Whose pail machine, if you know? 

Ans. That pail machine I ordered to be made at Lyon, Bragg 
& Hubbard's, for myself. Afterwards I had it charged to the 
Fibre "Ware Company, Waterville, Me., — I should have said 
Portland, Me. 

[Adjourned to 2 p. m., same day.] 



June 14, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 

206. Please state whether or not the said photographs repre- 
sent your third iron machine as it was set up after completion ; 
and if yea, state where it was set up. 

Ans. This photograph, marked No. 5, represents the third 
machine, and was set up in the Fibre Ware Company's mills, 
Waterville, Me., I think some time in August, 1883. 

207. What does the photograph No. 4, represent ? 
Ans. It represents the same machine. 

208. Who is the party represented, or photographed, in 
photograph No. 5 — standing near the machine ? 

Ans. It represents myself. 

209. Upon what machine was the pail made that is repre- 
sented in the foreground, as resting upon a bench or small 
stand ? 

Ans. That was made upon a machine that is represented 
in this photograph, No. 5. 

210. Now, are you able to state when these photographs 
were taken, and where was the machine at the time ? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 213 



Ans. Those photographs were taken very soon after the 
machine was set up at the Fibre Ware Company's Mill, in 
Waterville, Maine. 

211. Eef erring to Photograph No. 4, please state upon what 
machine was made the pail that is seen through and behind 
the framework of the machine and which rests upon a bench— 
the said pail being shown as hooped and bailed. 

Ans I think that was made upon the No. 2 machine. 

212. State if you know, what has become of the machine 
represented in Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 ? 

Ans. I do not. 

213. State whether or not it was in the works of the Fibre 
Ware Company, at or a short time before said works were de- 
stroyed by fire. 

Ans. It was there. 

214. I hand you a document, and ask you to state what it 
is, if you know. 

Ans. It is a check for $20, dated July 3, 1882, that I re- 
ceived from H. J. Chisholm, at his office on Exchange Street, 
Portland, Me., and got cashed that day at the National Trader's 
Bank, Portland, Me. 

[Said cheek introduced, marked " Bodge Exhibit No. 17, 
Chisholm Check of July 3, 1882,-4. S. J)., Ex\, June 14, 
1886."] 

215. Please examine said check, and state whether or not it 
now shows any signs of ever having been folded. 

Ans. It shows no such signs. I remember that I took the 
check in my hand and went directly to the Bank with it and got 
it cashed. 

216. Please state whether or not this check, Exhibit No. 17, 
is the one previously referred to, as having been received by you 
on the day that you and your brother, Elbridge S. Bodge, were 
in Portland together, as testified by you in your answer to Int. 
152. 



214 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. I recognize it as the same check. 

217. Calling your attention to the device which I point out 
to you, will you please state what it is, if you know ? 

An?. That is a plunger (referring to Bodge Exhibit Sec- 
tion Plunger.) 

218. State, if you can, whose it is, and how or with what it 
was used, if it all. 

Aas. It was used with a machine that I had made at Wa- 
terville, Me. — Bodge Exhibit No. 2. It was made for the Fibre 
Ware Company. 

219. State, if you can, when it was made. 

Ans. I cannot remember at what time, in the course of my 
experiments with that machine, Exhibit No. 2, this plunger was 
made. 

220. State, as near as you can, when you first used a sec- 
tional plunger, like or similar to Bodge Exhibit Sectional 
Plunger, during any of your experiments with the machine, 
Bodge Exhibit No. 2, or in connection with any other machine 
of your own invention. 

Ans. I don't think I used a sectional plunger until after I 
had tried the first iron machine. 

221. With what machine did you use the first sectional 
plunger which was constructed by or for you ? 

Ans. I used it with a machine — Exhibit 2. 

222. Please state how you used the first sectional plunger 
constructed by or for you, in connection with your machine, 
Exhibit No. 2 — referring to the parts of said machine with 
which such sectional plunger came in contact. 

Ans. The sectional plunger was used to press down on the 
outside of the rubber, to illustrate some things I wanted to find 
out in forming the pulp on the former. 

223. I call your attention to some pails in different stages 
of completion, and ask if you know where they were made. 



joskph g. bodge. 215 



Ans. They were made at the Indurated Fibre Company 
Mills, at North Gorham, Me. 

[Said pails — 5 in number — are introduced and marked, 
"Bodge Exhibit Ms. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22,— A. H. D., JSx'r, 
June 14, 1886," respectively.] 

224. Will you please describe the various steps employed 
in the formation and final completion of a pail — referring in 
your description, as it becomes necessary, to said Exhibit pails, 
Nos. 18-22, inclusive ? 

Ans. This pail, Exhibit 18 ; the pulp is mixed to the right 
consistency in a beating engine, the same as is used in mixing 
paper stock and wood-board. The stock is about the same 
consistency of the stock used for wood-board. It is taken from 
there to a tank in the basement of the mill, where there is an 
agitator to keep the pulp or fibre from settling at the bottom. 
Attached to this tank is a centrifugal pump, with pipes leading 
to the machine and returning to the tank. The pulp is let into 
the machine, under a pressure of about 75 pounds to the square 
inch, between the former and a rubber bag. After a sufficient 
amount of stock is forced into the machine to expand the bag 
against the iron case or dome, the valve is then closed, shutting 
off the stock, and a valve opened connecting with a pump, that 
is used for applying hydraulic pressure. After the pressure is 
applied, the rubber bag closes in towards the former, forces the 
water from the pulp through a drainer, made of No. 60 gauze. 
The water going through this drainer brings the fibre together 
and forms the pail. After the pail is formed the machine is 
unlocked, the former is lowered and the pail removed therefrom. 
It is then placed on racks and removed to the dry house. This 
Exhibit No. 18 represents a pail as dried on the dryer. 

TMs pail, No. 19, represents a pail after being taken from the 
dry house and put on to a form fitted to the inside of the pail. 
A gang of saws passes over the surface of the sides, takes off 



216 JOSEPH G. EODGE. 



the rough and evens the pail. It is then sawed off — the rough 
edge. 

This pail, Exhibit No. 20, represents a pail after the rough 
being taken off with a gang of saws, put on to a form, fitting 
the inside of the pail, which revolves — when I was there — 
about 700 revolutions in a minute. It is then sand-papered on 
the outside. It is then taken from that form and put into 
what we call a " chuck," which revolves about the same num- 
ber of revolutions a minute, and is sand-papered on the inside. 
It is then taken to the Treatment-House and dried thoroughly. 

This pail, Exhibit No. 21, represents a pail soaked in hot 
linseed oil and rosin. This pail, Exhibit No. 22, represents a 
pail soaked in hot linseed-oil and rosin, baked in an oven 12 
hours, under a temperature of about 250° ; removed from there, 
put on to a form, and sand-papered inside and out to take off 
the fuzz or nap. It is then dipped in boiled oil and rosin, and 
placed in the oven and baked for about 12 hours. It is then 
taken from the oven and dipped in the same preparation, placed 
back in the oven and baked again for about the same length 
of time, at a temperature of about 270°. It is then taken from 
the ovens, the ears and bail put on ; then packed in dozen 
packages, for the market. 

225. I call your attention to a device or article, and ask 
you what it is. 

Ans. It is called a baby-jumper seat. 

226. If you know, state where, and under what circum- 
stances it was made. 

Ans. This was made in Waterville, Maine. The circum- 
stances were that a gentleman from New York came to the Fi- 
bre Ware Company's mill, Waterville, Me. He had one made 
something in this shape of sole-leather. He said that he had 
noticed some fibre ware basins and thought that if the seats 
could be made of the same material as the basins, they would 
be better than the sole-leather ones, for the reason that the 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 217 



leather would get wet upon being used, and soon get out of 
shape. He asked me if I could make seats of pulp. I told 
him that 1 could. He wanted me to make a sample and send 
to him in New York. I went over to Mr. Lyon, of the firm 
of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, had a form made of the shape of 
the inside of the seat, had it fitted to the pail machine instead 
of the pail former, and formed quite a number of them. Some 
of them I finished up, soaked them in oil, baked them and sent 
them to New York. The gentleman that I sent them to, as 
soon, as he saw them, came to Waterville and wanted to make 
a contract for a large number of them. We had some left. I 
sent several to Portland, Me., at the request of some of the offi- 
cers of the Fibre Ware Company ; also some pails I sent with 
them to a meeting that they were about to hold in Portland, 
Me. 

[Said Baby Jumper seat introduced and marked " JBodge Ex- 
hibit No. 23— A. H. D., m?r, June 14, 1886."] 

[Adjourned to June 15, 9:30 A. M.] 



June 15, 9:30 a. m. 

[Met pursuant to adjournment ; parties present as before with 
the exception of the witness, from whom word was received 
that he would reach town at 11 A. M. ; or thereabouts.] 

[Witness appears at 12 m.] 

227. In your answer to Int. 141, you refer to having hired 
a team from B. F. Brown, of South Windham, the bill for 
which you have in your possession ; if you now have said bill 
will you now produce the same ? 

Ans. I will and do. 

[ Witness produces bill, and it is marJced "JBodge Exhibit JVb. 
23,— A. H. D., Ex'r, June 15, 1886."] 

228. If you now have anything to say as to your where- 
abouts upon any of the days about which you have testified in 

28— P. 0. 



218 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



your previous examination, please do so, with any reasons or 
explanations therefor. 

Ans. After thinking about the time I was at Brunswick, 
Me., and the circumstances connected with that, I remembered, 
since testifying, of other circumstances which occurred about 
that time, and I find that instead of being the seventh day of 
July I met Mr. Chisholm, Brown and Gardner, at Brunswick, 
that it was on the sixth day of July, 1882. The circumstances 
that brought my attention to this, was the next day after my 
arrival at Gorham, Me., — my son's — I had our doctor, N - . M. 
Marshall, telegraph to Dr. Smith, of Saccarappa, to meet him 
at my son's at about four o'clock ; since I remembered that cir- 
cumstance, I called on Drs. Smith and Marshall and find that 
that consultation was held on the seventh day of July, 1882. 

\_Latter part of this answer objected to as hearsay. ,] 

229. Were you present at or during the consultation of 
Drs. Marshall and Smith, at Gorham, on the seventh day of 
July, 1882? 

Ans. I was. 



Cross- Examination by C. F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Caemichael. 



X 230. What has been torn off of the lower part of the last 
exhibit you have introduced, being Exhibit No. 23 ? % 

Ans. I couldn't tell. 

X 231. As it now stands it is an unreceipted bill ; was it 
ever paid ? 

Ans. It was. 

X 232. When was the receipt torn off from it ? 

Ans. I do not know. 

X 233. What do the figures on the back refer to? 

Ans. I couldn't tell. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 219 



X 234. Will you now state the different days in the year 
1882, in which you were in Brunswick and met Prof. Car* 
michael ? 

Aois. With my best memory and what I have been able to 
ascertain, I was at his house on the sixth day of July, 1882, 
and the eleventh day of July, 1882. 

X 235. Are these the only days in the year 1882, in which 
you met Prof. Carmichael in Brunswick ? 

Atis. I do not remember of being there on any other days, 
and have not been able to find out if I was. 

X 236. How positive are you that the days above men- 
tioned are the only times at which you met Prof. Carmichael 
in Brunswick in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. As I have not been able to remember, or get any evi- 
dence of being there any other days. 

X 237. [Cross-Int. 236 repeated.] 

Ans. I shall have to make the same answer. 

X 238. The question is how positive are you, on this point, 
that you did not meet him at any other times than July 6th 
and 11th, at Brunswick, in 1882 ? 

Ans. I am positive that I do not remember of being there, 
nor have I been able to get any evidence that I was there at 
any other time. 

X 239. Are you willing to swear that you did not meet 
him in Brunswick, in the year 1882, on any other day or days, 
except the two above mentioned ? 

Ans. I am not. 

X 240. On what other day or days, except those above 
mentioned, is it possible that you may have met Prof. Carmi- 
chael in Brunswick in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. I couldn't remember any particular day that I may 
have met him, except the sixth and eleventh of July. 

X 241. What was the object of your different visits to 
Prof. Carmichael in Brunswick, in July, 1882 ? 



220 ' JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. It was for the object of consulting with him in regard 
to building a Treatment House at Waterville, Me. ; and about 
his process of treating hollow-ware. 

X 242. When did he first explain to you the details of his 
process for treating hollow-ware ? 

Ans. I think on the eleventh day of July, 1882. There 
may have been some talk about it when I was there with 
Chisholm, Brown & Gardner, on the sixth day of July. 

X 243. On any of your visits to Brunswick, in July, 1882, 
did you meet Mr. C. C. Hutchins, now Instructor in Astrono- 
my and Physics, in Bowdoin College ? 

Ans. I think I did meet Mr. Hutchins, but cannot state 
how many times. 

X 244. When and where did you first meet him ? 

Ans. I think the first time I saw Mr. Hutchins was in or 
near Prof. Carmichael's stable. I do not remember whether I 
was introduced to him at that time, or not. 

X 245. When were you first introduced to him and by 
whom ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 246. Did you ever have any conversation with him, as 
to the treatment of basins by Prof. Carmichael's indurating 
process ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 247. How did you happen to make the acquaintance of 
Mr. C. C. Hutchins, in Brunswick, in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 248. Did you meet him more than once in Brunswick, 
in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I think I did. 

X 249. How many times ? 

Ans. I could not tell. 

X 250. How many times have you any positive recollec- 
tion of meeting him in Brunswick, in July, 1882 ? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 221 



Ans. I will not state positively how many times, but I 
think two or three. 

X 251. If you have any distinct recollection of meeting him 
more than once, will you state the circumstances of each meet- 
ing, and the number of the same. 

Ans. My memory is that I saw him at the Treatment- 
House and at the stable near Prof. Carmichael's house. I re- 
member a circumstance of Mr. Peterson saying that he was 
there, but did not know anything about the business. Mr. 
Peterson seemed to me at that time to be put out, because he 
was superseded by Mr. Hutchins. 



[Adjourned here to 2 p. M.] 



June 15th, 2:15 p. m. 

X 252. When was it that Mr. Peterson made the remark, 
referred to in your last answer ? 

Ans. I cannot remember. 

X 253. Was it at the time of either of your visits to Bruns- 
wick in July, 1882, as before stated by you ? 

Ans. I do not think it was. - 

X 254. Why, then, did you state it as a circumstance which 
you remembered in connection with your seeing Mr. C. C. 
Hutchins at the Treatment-House, at the time of one of those 
visits ? 

Ans. I didn't wish to be understood as saying that this was 
at the time of either of my visits on the sixth of July or the 
eleventh. I mentioned it as I remembered of some conversa- 
tion of that kind with Mr. Peterson. 

X 255. What did you mean in your answer to Int. 251, by 
the phrase, Mr. Peterson said " that he was there, but did not 
know anything about the business " ? 

Ans. I supposed Mr. Peterson meant that he was merely 



222 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



there as a figure-head, but I did not say it was either on the 
sixth or eleventh of July that this remark was made by Mr. 
Peterson. 

X 256. What did you mean by the word there, in the above 
quotation ? 

Ans. At the Treatment-House in Brunswick, Me. 
• X 257. How had Peterson been superseded by Mr. Hutch- 
ins ? 

Ans. As I understood it, at the first times I was there Mr. 
Peterson was in charge of the Treatment-House in Brunswick, 
Me. About how he had been superseded by Mr. Hutchins I 
do not know. 

X 258. In your answer to Int. 251 you say, " Mr. Peterson 
seemed to me at that time to be put out because he was super- 
seded by Mr. Hutchins." Will you state why you gave this 
circumstance as an answer to my inquiry in which I requested 
you to state the circumstances of each of your meetings with 
Mr. C. C. Hutchins, if the circumstance stated by you had 
nothing to do with such meeting. 

Ans. I do not wish to be understood as saying that this 
circumstance occurred on the sixth day of July, or the eleventh 
day of July, as I do not remember of seeing Mr. Hutchins at 
the Treatment-House on either of these days ; but I will not 
say, positively, that I did not see him at the Treatment-House 
on the eleventh. 

X 259. In your last answer you say, " I do not remember 
of seeing Mr. C. C. Hutchins at the Treatment-House on either 
of these days." In the commencement of your answer to Int. 
251 you say, " My memory is that I saw him at the Treat- 
ment House." If such was your memory an hour ago before ad- 
journment, at what time did you then refer to as having seen 
Mr. Hutchins at the Treatment-House ? 

Ans. I do not refer to any particular time that I saw him. 
I remember of seeing Mr. Hutchins at the Treatment-House 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 223 



in Brunswick, Maine, but I can't at this moment recall the 
date. 

X 260. If it was not on July 6th, or July 11th, when was 
it? 

Ans. I do not know. 

X 261. Were you at the Treatment-House in Brunswick on 
any other days in July, 1882, except those last above stated ? 

Ans. I may have been, but do not remember positively 
whether I was or not. 

X 262. On what other days in July, except the sixth or 
eleventh, may you have been at the Treatment-House ? 

Ans. I may have been there on the fifteenth day of July, 
or between the twenty-sixth day of July and the first day of 
August. 

X 263. What was the object of your visit to Brunswick 
on the fifteenth day of July, 1882, as stated in your answer to 
Int. 146 ? 

Ans. One object was to meet my wife, and another was, as 
near as I can recollect, to visit the Treatment-House in Bruns- 
wick. 

X 264 For what purpose did you wish to visit the Treat- 
ment-House at that time ? 

Ans. If I visited the Treatment-House at that time it was 
for the purpose of learning the details of the process for treat- 
ing hollow-ware, which I was instructed to give my attention 
to. 

X 265. From whom were you to learn the details and 
process above referred to ? 

Ans. I got the most of my information regarding the pro- 
cess used for indurating ware from William Peterson. 

X 266. From whom were you instructed to learn the de- 
tails of the process for treating hollow ware, referred to in your 
answer to Int. 265 ? 



224 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. From Charles D. Brown, of Portland, Me., and Hugh 
J. Chisholm, of the same place. 

X 267. My question is not ly whom you were instructed, 
as you have answered it, but from whom were you to learn these 
details according to the instructions you received ? 

Ans. I was instructed to meet Charles D. Brown, at Prof. 
Carmichael's, in Brunswick, Me., on the sixth day of July, 18S2, 
for the purpose cf getting, as T supposed, instructions from him, 
Prof. Carmichael. 

X 268. When you visited Brunswick for the purpose of 
learning the details of Prof. Carmichael's indurating process, 
as indicated in your answer to Int. 264, did you expect to 
learn them from a laborer like Peterson, in Prof. Carmichael's 
employ, or from the man who invented the process, and super- 
intended the operations of the Treatment-House ? 

Ans. I know one thing, that whoever superintended the 
Treatment-House, or treatment of ware, at that time, came very 
near running the business into the ground ; notwithstanding all 
my efforts to send nice formed ware to Brunswick, Me., to be 
treated and put onto the market to build up a trade, the greatest 
part of the ware was so badly treated that it was returned to 
Waterville, Me., and remained there until I sold them — the 
basins — for twenty-five cents a dozen. 

X 269. Is that the only answer you can make to my ques- 
tion? 

Ans. I thought William Peterson knew as much about it 
as any man I met there at that time — the details, I mean. 

X 270. What men did you meet there at that time, as re- 
ferred to in your last answer? 

Ans. I do not remember their names, with the exception of 
Mr. Peterson. 

X 271. Did you ever see the written detailed instructions 
furnished by Prof. Carmichael to the Fibre Ware Company, as 
to the use of his indurating process on their ware ? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 225 



Ans. I have. 

X 272. When did you first see it ? 

Ans. I don't remember when I first saw it. 

X 273. How are you able to fix the date of July 15, 1882, 
as the time that you left G-orham in the morning and came to 
Brunswick, and met your wife and returned with her to North 
Gorham on the afternoon train, as previously testified to by 
you ? 

Ans. I fix it from memory, and by circumstances connected 
with my son's sickness at that time. 

X 274. What circumstances ? 

Ans. One circumstance is, Mr. H. B. Cloudman taking me 
to Gorham Corner to take the early train to connect with the 
Maine Central, and my memory of that time, and my wife's 
memory. 

X 275. Why would not the circumstance of Mr. Cloudman's 
taking you to Gorham Corner, have happened on some other 
day, so that your memory may be at fault in the matter ? 

Ans. I don't remember of going to Gorham Corner to take 
the early train on any other morning than that, or at any other 
time in 1882. 

X 276. After an interval of nearly four years, does that 
event stand out so identified with the date July 15, 1882, as to 
enable you to fix it positively ? 

Ans. Since this Interference case came to my notice, I have 
been searching diligently and carefully for every fact in con- 
nection with my memory, to get at my whereabouts and move- 
ments in the month of July, 1882. I have not been able so 
far, to fix that event on any other day than the fifteenth day 
of July, 1882. 

X 277. Do you depend for that date upon any prior or 
subsequent dates, fixed by you in July, 1882 ? 
Ans. I do. 

X 278. What other dates ? 
29— P. 0. 



226 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. From the fact of my wife's returning with me to 
Waterville, Maine, on Monday, the seventeeth day of July, 
1882, and my return to Gorham on the nineteenth. 

X 279. Is that date, the fifteenth of July, fixed any more 
or less positively in your mind, than any other date you have 
mentioned in your testimony ? 

Ans. It is not. I mean my movements in going to and 
from Waterville and Gorham. 

X 280. How many days were you absent from Waterville, 
in the month of July, 1882 ? Please specify those on which 
you were so absent? 

Ans. I was absent from the first to the third ; I was absent 
from the sixth to the eleventh ; I was absent from the thirteenth 
to the seventeenth ; I was absent from the nineteenth to the 
twenty-sixth. 

X 281. Are you positive as to these dates ? 

Ans. I am, so far as I can recollect and get any evidence of. 

X 282. My question addresses itself to the accuracy of 
your recollection and the certainty of the evidence, and in view 
of both are you willing to testify positively as to the dates 
stated by you in your answer to Int. 280 ? 

Ans. I am not. 

X 283. Which dates, if any, of those referred to, are you 
not willing to testify to positively ? 

Ans. I haven't so positive evidence, although I am very 
sure, and think that I can furnish positive evidence before the 
close of this examination, about the fifteenth day of July, 1882. 

X 284. Is your certainty as to the dates July 11th, July 
12th, and July 13th, more or less positive than as to the date 
July 15th, and the events connected therewith ? 

Ans. They are more positive at this time. 

X 285. Where does your doubt arise as to July 15, 1882 
Ans. I have no doubt. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 227 



X 286. Why then is it less positive than as to the dates 
July 11th, 12th and 13th? 

Aois. I haven't got as much evidence. 

X 287. So that in fixing these different dates, if I under- 
stand you, you are not relying upon your own recollection, but 
upon that of other parties. Ami correct ? 

Ans. I rely on both my own and others. 

X 288. To what extent do you rely on your own and to 
what extent on other parties' recollection, in fixing these dif- 
ferent dates in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I rely on my own during the month of July, from the 
fact that it was one of the most eventful periods in my life. I 
recall my memory of events and circumstances connected with 
them, and searched diligently for evidence to substantiate my 
recollection so that I cannot make any mistake, as I do not 
wish to do, in my evidence in this Interference case. I will 
add there, that I remembered a circumstance that was con- 
nected with my visit to my son's home on July 6, 1882. I 
went immediately to the parties and found out that I had made a 
mistake of one day ; that was the cause of my not being at this 
office at half-past nine this morning. I refer to the date of 
July 6th, which I had previously stated as July 7th. 

X 289. In your previous testimony, you have referred to 
your search for outside evidence as enabling you to fix dates. 
Will you state whether or not, in such search, you visited the 
office of Dr. Jones, the dentist in Waterville. 

Ans. I did. 

X 290. Did you procure from him any bill or paper fixing 
a date of the purchase of rubber which has not been introduced 
in evidence? 

Ans. I did. 

X 291. Where is that paper now? 

Ans. I have it in my hand, and produce it. 

X 292. I see this bill is dated April 3, 1886, and is marked 



228 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



"Duplicate" and not receipted. At whose request did Dr. 
Jones obtain this duplicate bill ? 

Ans. It was not by ray request. I am not sure as he told 
me at whose request that he procured that, but he may have 
told me at the time I got it. 

X 293. At the time you saw Dr. Jones, early this spring, 
did you ask him whether he could remember at what time, if 
any, he ever sold you a piece of rubber ? 

Ans. I think I did. 

X 294. Did he then tell you that he could not remember, 
or words to that effect ? 

Ans. He did, and I called his attention to the conversation, 
as I remembered it, that we had when I procured the rubber 
of him, the first that I bought of him. I pointed out where it 
was taken from, and told him the circumstance, as I remem- 
bered it, of what there was said between us at the time. 

[Adjourned here to 9:30 A. M. of June 16, 1886.] 



June 16th, 9:30 a. m. 

X 295. Did your visits to Brunswick, in July, 1882, have 
any reference to plans for a Treatment-House, made by Prof. 
Carmichael, which you were to erect in Waterville, Maine ? 

Ans. They did. 

X 296. When did said plans first come into your possession ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 297. What do you mean by that ? 

Ans. I mean that I do not remember when I got the 
sketches, drawings, of Prof. Carmichael. 

X 298. If your visits to Brunswick had as their object in 
view, the obtaining of such plans, do you not know whether 
such plans were furnished you at such visits, or either of them ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 299. Is it possible that your memory can be sufficiently 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 229 



exact to re -produce conversation happening four years ago, with 
such detail and minuteness as in your answer to Int. 112, and 
yet cannot remember whether you succeeded in one of the 
objects of your visit, which was to obtain plans for the Treat- 
ment-House? 

Ans. I remember, substantially, the conversation that we 
had in regard to the manner or ideas expressed by each of us 
in our short conversation ; but I do not remember whether I 
got the plans of a Treatment-House to be built in Waterville, 
Me., or not. 

X 300. Can you remember whether or not, for any reason, 
there was urgency on the part of the Fibre Ware Company to 
obtain those plans in July, 1882? 

Ans. I think there was. 

X 301. For what reason ? 

Ans. I think one reason was, that the basins that we ship- 
ped from Waterville to Brunswick to be treated, were injured 
somewhat ; another was, I think, that they were very imper- 
fectly treated at Brunswick, Me. 

X 302. Did you have those plans before you, at any inter- 
view you had with Prof. Carmichael in July, 1882, in Bruns- 
wick, Maine ? 

Ans. I saw a sketch there at his house— -as I remember it 
now, it was not completed — of the proposed Treatment-House 
to be built in Waterville, Maine. 

X 303. What sort of a sketch did you see ? 

Ans. I think it was on a paper ; I think it was nearly 
square — I don't know but I may be wrong about that. 

X 304 What kind of paper ? 

Ans. It was white paper, if I remember right. 

X 305. Letter-paper or draughtiug-paper ? 

Ans. I do not remember distinctly. 

X 306. Do you mean by that, that you have any doubt 
that it was on paper other than letter-paper ? 



230 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. It might have been. 

X 307. Were not these plans, or sketches, as you call them, 
afterwards used by you in constructing the Treatment-House, 
at Waterville, Maine ? 

Ans. I made a drawing from a sketch made by Prof. Car- 
michael and changed it somewhat from his sketch, for the 
purpose of a drawing to work from. 

X 308. Did not you receive from Prof. Carmichael working 
plans, drawn to a scale, for the Treatment-House to be erected 
at Waterville ? 

Ans. I received a sketch or plan from Prof. Carmichael, 
and made drawings myself to work by, using them in the con- 
struction of the Treatment-House, at Waterville, Me. 

X 309. Did you or not, receive plans, drawn to a scale, 
from Prof. Carmichael, for the erection of a Treatment-House 
at Waterville ? 

Ans. I received plans from him which I presume was drawn 
to a scale. 

X 310. Did you, at any interview you had with Prof. Car- 
michael in July, 1882, discuss the details of these plans ? 

Ans. I think I did. 

X 311. Can you remember what, if any, details you then 
discussed ? 

Ans. We talked about the size of the ovens, location of the 
furnace, and the general construction of the proposed building. 

X 312. Did you have any discussion with him at that time, 
as to the location of the chimney ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 313. Did you have any correspondence with Prof. Car- 
michael, in July, 1882, about these plans ? 

Ans. I think very likely I did. 

X 314. What do you remember about that correspondence ? 

Ans. I don't remember anything about it — what it was. 

X 315. Is your memory so defective as to matters happen- 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 231 



ing four years ago, relating to the special object of your visit to 
Brunswick, as not to furnish you any details of the matter in- 
quired about in Int. 314 ? 

Ans. A letter may have been written by me when I was 
very much hurried about that time, that I should not remember 
the contents after four years. 

X 316. Do you remember now of writing any such letter ? 

Ans. I think I remember of writing to Prof. Carmichael, 
but I cannot state at what time, or what was in the letter. 

X 317. Did you write him more than once in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I think very likely that I did. 

X 318. Do you remember now of having written him more 
than once in that month ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 319. Does the letter referred to in your answer to Int. 
315, stand out in your memory as an isolated fact, or do you 
remember it as a part of other correspondence that you had 
with Prof. Carmichael in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I think that I wrote him something in relation to the 
Treatment-House, but I don't remember what, nor when. 

X 320. [Question 319 repealed.] 

Ans. I do not remember it as a part of other correspondence. 

X 321. Did you receive any letters or postals, or other com- 
munications from Prof. Carmichael, in the year 1882, and sub- 
sequent to your last visit to Brunswick, in July in that year ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 322. Is your memory troublesome, in dealing with such 
matters, so that it furnishes you no information ? 

Ans. It is a good deal owing to the circumstances of the 
case. 

X 323. Don't you know whether you received any com- 
munication from Prof. Carmichael, subsequent to your visits to 
him in July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I do not. 



232 JOSKPH G. BODGE. 



X 324 Don't you know whether you wrote to him for any 
information, subsequent to the time referred to in the last ques- 
tion ? 

Arts. I think very likely that I did. 

X 325. Don't you know whether you received any reply 
from him ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 326. In your answers to Ints. 67 and 68, you say that 
you commenced the wooden machine now produced as your Ex- 
hibit No. 2, in the early part of June, 1882, and that it was 
completed in the middle or latter part of the same month. 
What parts other than those now present were connected with 
said machine, or were used as a part of the same, when it was 
completed, as you state ? 

Ans. There was a pipe attached, which is not here, to the 
bottom of the bed ; and a gauze jacket to cover the former. 

X 326. Was there anything else ? 

Ans. I do not remember, at this time. 

X 327. Do you mean by that, there was not anything else — 
or that your memory is cloudy upon the subject ? 

Ans. I don't mean that there was nothing else. There was 
a suction pump attached to the pipe leading from the bed. 

X 328. From what part of the bed ? 

Ans. The bottom. 

X 329. What part of the bottom ? 

Ans. From the center. 

X 330. What sort of a suction pump was this, that was 
attached to the pipe, running from the center of the bed ? 

Ans. We had a small engine in the mill — it was there 
when I went there — that I had cleaned up ; the belt put on to 
the fly-wheel and belted from the main shaft. We used that for 
suction. 

X 331. When was that engine changed to a suction pump ? 

Ans. I couldn't give the dates when it was done. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 233 



X 332. About what time? 

Ans. I think in the summer or fall of 1882. 

X 333. Then, when you have been answering my previous 
questions about this machine, have you referred to the time 
when this machine was completed, in the middle or latter part 
of June, 1882, as stated in your answer to Int. 68, or to a 
period subsequent to that time ? 

Ans. That machine was made in the month of June, 1882. 
We used it with a suction pump. I think we had the pump in 
the basement at the time it was first used. 

X 334. What suction pump do you refer to, in your last 
answer, as being in the basement ? 

Ans. It was a pump that we had there, belted from the 
main shaft in the basement. 

X 335. When did you change from that suction pump to 
the suction pump made from an engine, as previously described ? 

Ans. I don't remember at what time. 

X 336. Why did you change ? 

Ans. We changed, because the small engine worked better 
for the purpose that we wanted to use it for. 

X 337. And what was that purpose ? 

Ans. To get a stronger suction. 

X 338. Were both pumps connected with the same orifice 
in the bed ? 

Ans. Not at the same time. 

X 339. I do not mean at the same time, but in the order of 
their use ? 

Ans. They were. 

X 340. At the time this machine, Exhibit No. 2, was com- 
pleted in June, 1882, as you have previously testified, did the 
piece of gas-pipe, now on the side of one of the iron segments 
[E], form a part of this machine ? 

Ans. I don't think it did. 

X 341. When was that added ? 
30— P. 0. 



234 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Arts. I don't remember at what particular time. 

X 342. Have you no recollection upon that point? 

Ans. I have not. 

X 343. Who did the work ? 

Ans. I think that was done at Arnold's, or by one of his 
men. 

X 344. Whom do you mean by Arnold's ? 

Ans. He carries on the hard-ware business at Waterville, 
Me. — his name is, I think, W. B. Arnold. 

X 345. Do you know what workman, in the employ of Mr. 
Arnold, put that piece of gas pipe on to the iron segment ? 

Ans. There was two men in his employ that done work for 
me at that time, or the spring and summer of 1882. I do not 
remember now which of the two men done that particular job. 

X 346. What were the names of those two men ? 

Ans. One of them was Henry Williams ; the other I do 
not recall his name. 

X 347. Where is Henry Williams now ? 

Ans. I saw him in Waterville, Me., the last time I was 
there. 

X 348. When was that ? 

Ans. I think it was the 22d day of May, 1886. It was 
my birth-day, so I remember that. 

X 349. In whose employ was he then. 

Ans. I think in W. B. Arnold's employ. 

X 350. Did you summons him down here as a witness in 
your behalf in this case ? 

Ans. I saw him here in this office. I supposed that he had 
been asked to come here. 

X 351. How long ago was that ? 

Ans. I don't remember what day it was — not long ago. 

X 352. Was he sent home after being interviewed, without 
testifying ? 

Ans. I do not know whether he was sent home or not. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 235 



X 353. For what purpose was that piece of gas-pipe intro- 
duced into the side of the iron segment, whenever that was 
done? 

Ans. That was to test some thing or things that I wanted to 
find out, in the course of my experimenting. 

X 354 [Question X353 repeated] 

Ans. There was a great many experiments and ideas carried 
out on this machine, and the order of their being so carried out I 
do not undertake to remember at this time ; knowing the mag- 
nitude of the job that I was then at work on, knowing that 
there had been years of experimenting, and a great deal of 
money spent for that purpose, I placed my whole mind and at- 
tention on learning every little detail in the formation of hol- 
low-ware from pulp. I do not recall at what date, nor just the 
idea that I wanted to test, at the time that that small pipe was 
put into the iron ring, marked [E] [E], in two segments. 

X 355. What, if anything, was connected with that small 
gas pipe in the iron segment, in your use of the machine ? 

Ans. I don't think there was anything connected with it, 
except another piece of pipe coming up along side of the cyl- 
inder. 

X 356. Don't you know for what purpose you arranged 
that pipe, or how it affected the operation of the machine ? 

Ans. I think one purpose was to let in air. 

X 357. What did you want to let in air for ? 

Ans. I should judge to assist the suction pump which was 
attached to the machine. 

X 358. How did that assist the suction pump ? 

Ans. By letting air to the machine. 

X 359. Into what part of the machine ? 

Ans. It connects with the stock ring. 

X 360. Is that pipe so arranged as to let air into the 
channel or opening under the iron segments? 



236 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. It would, if there was nothing else there to prevent it 
going in. 

X 361. What do you mean in your last answer by " if there 
was nothing else there " ? What else is there there ? 

Ans. I don't understand that question. 

X 362. The Examiner is requested to read the last two 
questions and answers to witness. 

[Said questions and answers read to the witness.'] 

Ans. I did not fully understand Int. 360, or wasn't paying 
strict attention. 

X 363. Do you understand Int. 360 now ; if so, please 
answer it ? 

Ans. It is not. 

X 364. Into what part of the machine was it arranged to 
let in air to assist the action of the suction pump, as you have 
previously testified ? 

Ans. Into the cylinder, above the iron ring. 

X 365. How did that assist the action of the suction pump, 
in the operation of this machine ? 

Ans. I don't know that it did. 

X 366. Can you now give an intelligible account of the 
purpose and function of that part of the machine ? 

Ans. That was tried in connection with a great many other 
thoughts that would come into my mind, merely to find out 
what effect it would produce. 

X 367. At the time this machine was completed in June, 
1882, was there a wooden plunger made with it, other than the 
plunger now produced here, and marked " Bodge Exhibit, Sec- 
tional Plunger"? 

Ans. I think there was. 

X 368. Don't you know ? 

Ans. I wouldn't swear to it positively. 

X 369. What makes you think so ? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 237 



Ans. I have that impression from what I remember about 
the machine. 

X 370. Were there so many plungers used in connection 
with this machine, that your recollection is confused as to the 
order in which they were made ? 

Ans. I don't have any recollection of there being more than 
two plungers made for that machine. 

X 371. What were those two plungers? 

Ans. One of them, I think, was made of soft wood, and 
hooped — that is my recollection about it. This plunger that I 
now see — Bodge Exhibit, Sectional Plunger — is the second one, 
if I remember right about it. 

X 372. What sort of hoops did the plunger made of soft 
wood have ? 

Ans. I think they must have been of iron — metal. 

X 373. Heavy iron hoops or light ? 

Ans. I do not rember how heavy they were. 

X 374. Is this sectional plunger made of soft wood or hard 
wood? 

Ans, I think that one (pointing to Bodge Exhibit, Sec- 
tional Plunger) is made of hard wood. 

X 375. Which of these two plungers was first made ? 

Ans. I cannot state positively, but think the pine one was 
made first. 

X 376. Is the sectional plunger produced here in the same 
form in which it was first constructed ? If not, what changes 
were afterwards made in it ? 

Ans. I think it has been split open since it was made, into 
three parts. I don't remember whether there has been any 
other change made in it since it was made. 

X 377. What parts, if any, are now wanting to this sec- 
tional plunger, which formed a part of it when it was first con- 
structed ? 



288 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. I thiuk there is a head which belongs with that, and 
something that went round the bottom part of it. 

X 378. What sort of a " something " that went round the 
bottom part of it ? 

Ans. I should judge that there was a ring fitted on there, 
at some time. 

X 379. What kind of a ring ? 

Ans. I don't remember now, whether it was iron or wood, 
or what shape it was. 

X 380. What was the purpose of the ring ? 

Ans. I should judge it was for the purpose of closing the 
segmental parts together. 

X 381. Any other purpose? 

Ans. There may have been. 

X 381/£ What other purpose may there have been in the 
ring, as suggested in your last answer ? 

Ans. I do not remember. 

X 382. Does your memory fail to furnish you with infor- 
mation as to the form and structure, and material and purposes 
of this ring for the bottom of this plunger, as you had it first 
constructed ? 

Ans. I tried so many different experiments for the purpose 
of learning small points in a cheap way with this machine now 
before me, marked Exhibit No. 2, — and as I .have taken no 
pains since this examination, or previous to it, to try to remem- 
ber, I cannot state the number of experiments that I tried 
nor the order in which they were tried, nor all of the points 
I wanted to demonstrate by the different experiments. 

[Adjourned to 2:30 p. m., same day.] 



June 16, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 
X 383. My questions address themselves to the early use 
of this machine, about which in your direct examination you 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 239 



have testified very much in detail. Does your memory fail to 
give you information as to the early use of this plunger before 
it was changed over into the sectional plunger, which is produced 
here as your Exhibit ? 

Ans. In forming basins we had a machine with an iron 
cylinder and a former in the bottom, and a plunger that went 
down into that cylinder, with a die corresponding to the one 
in the bottom of the cylinder. Each was covered by a felt 
drainer. The stock was let into the cylinder; the plunger 
was let down and forced in by an iron lever that was weighted 
at one end and had a pinion on the other, and a rack on the 
stem of the upper die, which forced the water from the pulp 
through perforations in the male die, and formed the basins. 
In these experiments with my machine, Exhibit No. 2, I tried 
the effect that it would have in forming the pail, with other 
experiments. 

X 384. I do not gather from your last answer as to what 
use you mean to be understood as saying the first form of this 
sectional plunger was put, in the early operation of this 
machine. I have asked you the shape and purpose of the 
ring that you say was then about the bottom of this plunger, 
which in your answer to Int. 381, you say you do not remem- 
ber, other than that it was for the purpose of keeping the parts 
together. "Will you now state whether, when this plunger 
was first used, it had an iron ring about it at the bottom, with 
a groove in the outside of the ring, to be used as a packing 
ring ? 

Ans. I don't remember whether there was a grooved ring 
on this plunger or not ; but I think we had a ring or a tight 
plunger for the purpose of putting on packing, so that we 
could force it into the cylinder without letting the stock up 

by- 

X 385. Was not this Sectional Plunger, as it now appears, 



240 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



a tight plunger when it was first made, and before the arms or 
segments were used ? 

Ans. I think it was. 

X 386. Will you examine this exhibit, marked " Sectional 
Plunger," about its lower edge, where the ring formerly went, 
and state whether or not, on the surface of the shellac or var- 
nish still remaining on the side formerly in contact with the 
ring, you discover any marks which indicate that an iron or 
metal surface was formerly in contact with that wood. 

Ans. I will. (Witness examines.) Yes, I should think 
there had been iron on there some time. 

X 387. Does this examination aid you in determining 
whether the grooved ring, which you have spoken of, was 
originally on this plunger, or on the soft wood plunger which 
you have before mentioned as used with this machine ? 

Ans. I do not i emember which plunger the iron ring with 
the groove for the purpose of putting on the packing was on. 

X 388. Were the three tin pipes, now found on the outside 
of this sectional plunger, connected with it at the time when it 
was first made and existed in the form of a tight plunger ? 

Ans. They must have been there before the plunger was 
made in sections. 

X 389. When was this plunger changed from a tight plunger 
to a sectional plunger ? 

Ans. I don't remember the date ; but I think it was some 
time after I tried our first iron machine. 

X 390. Who made this plunger in its original form ? 

Ans. I don't remember. 

X 391. Who made the machine, your Exhibit No. 2, as it 
was completed in June, 1882? 

Ans. A man by the name of Orel Stevens done most of the 
work — the wood-work I mean. 

X 392. Where does he now live, and what is his occupa- 
tion? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 241 



Ans. In Waterviile, Me. I think he told me that he was 
at work in a sash and blind factory. 

X 393. Since the examination of your witnesses in this case 
commenced, have you had him down here as a witness to find 
out what he knew about this machine and this plunger ? 

Ans. He was here one day. I did not ask him any ques- 
tions about any machines on that day. 

X 394. What was he here for ? 

Ans. I suppose he was here in connection with this exam- 
ination. 

X 395. Do you not know that Orel Stevens made the 
wood-work of this Sectional Plunger, when it was first con- 
structed as a tight plunger ? 

Ans. I do not know positively whether he made it or not 
— this one, I mean. 

X 396. Was not the wood-work of this plunger made by 
Orel Stevens, in connection with the wood-work of this ma- 
chine, No. 2, at the time when it was first completed ? 

Ans. It may have been. 

X 397. In your search for facts and dates, which you have 
previously stated that you have diligently made, have you not 
attempted to fix the facts and dates relating to the use and 
changes in this machine, No. 2, by consultation with the two 
men, Orel Stevens and Henry Williams, who did the principal 
work upon it ? 

Ans. I did not search very diligently for the facts connected 
with that machine, nor any of the others ; but I did ask Mr. 
Stevens what he remembered about it, and he said he didn't 
remember much of anything. I also asked Mr. Williams — I 
did not get much information from him, if any. 

X 398. Did you ask Orel Stevens how this machine was 
first used ? 



Ans. I think very likely I did. 
31— P. O. 



242 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



X 399. Did you learn from him that this sectional plunger, 
in its original form, was first used with this machine ? 

Arts. I don't remember what he did say, other than he did 
not remember much about it. I did not feel interested enough 
in that to fix my mind on what he said. 

X 400. Who put the three tin pipes upon this plunger 
when it was first made ? 

Ans. I presume some man working for Mr. Arnold. 

X 401. Did you ever attempt to learn, by inquiry of Henry 
Williams, whether he did that work ? 

Ans. I did not inquire of him about that. 

X 402. For what purpose were those tin-pipes in the sides 
of this plunger first put in and used ? 

Ans. I should judge, from the looks, that they were put in 
for the purpose of letting the water up through, as the plunger 
was forced into the machine. 

X 403. How was the water taken care of by means of these 
pipes ? 

Ans. I should judge, from a hose connected with the suc- 
tion pump. 

X 404. How was the hose connected with these tin pipes ? 

Ans. I should judge there was a ring that went round the 
plunger and connected with the hose. 

X 405. Do you find any such ring there ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 406. What connected the tin pipes with the suction 
pump ? 

Ans. I should judge there was a hose went in there some- 
where. 

X 407. Were both the former and the plunger, at the time 
this plunger was first made and used, connected with a suction 
pump? 

Ans. My recollection of using that machine first, is simply 
by a suction pump connecting with the bottom of the bed. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 243 



X 408. When was suction used in connection with the 
plunger, then ? 

Ans. I do not remember in what part of my experiments 
that came in. 

X 409. Is the wooden core of the former, now produced 
here, the first core that was used with this machine ? 

Ans. I think it was. 

X 410. Was there not a solid core first used with this ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. I don't remember that there was. 

X 411. Was there not a core without iron rings and with- 
out holes in it first used in this machine ? 

Ans. I don't think there was. 

X 412. Are you positive about this? 

Ans. I am not. 

X 413. Was there not wire gauze covering the core and 
also the iron segments, marked [E] [E], in this machine, at the 
time it was first used ? 

Ans. There was a wire gauze covering the galvanized iron 
jacket which was used on the core, but none on the segment 
casting, marked [E] [E], that I remember of. 

X 414. Are you positive about this ? 

Ans. I don't see any use that a gauze could be put to on 
that segment casting, marked [E] [E] ; and I don't remember 
that there ever was any on it. 

X 415. Did you ever make any attempt, in the early use of 
this machine, to form a bead or thickened edge on the outer rim 
of the pail ? 

Ans. I do not remember distinctly about that. 

X 416. Was a suction pipe ever connected with the channel 
or opening under the segmental rings, marked [E] [E], in the 
first or early use of the machine, No. 2 ? 

Ans. Not that I remember of. 

X 417. Are you positive about that? 



244 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. I am not. 

X 418. Who constructed the first experimental pail ma- 
chine, which has been referred to as the tin machine ? 

Ans. I think Henry Williams done the most of it — if not 
all. 

X 419. Was the cylinder of that machine straight, the 
same as in this machine, No. 2 ? 

Ans. I think it was. 

X 420. And did the plunger, in the tin machine, fit tight 
to the cylinder, the same as the plunger with a grooved ring, 
that you have referred to in your testimony as being used in 
this machine, No. 2 ? 

[ Objected to — as assuming a fact different from the precise 
testimony, ,] 

Ans. I think it did. 

X 42 1. How was the pulp put into the tin machine ? 

Ans. Into the top of the cylinder? 

X 422. How was suction applied in the tin machine ? 

Ans. I think it was applied at the bottom of the machine. 

X 423. Was it also applied at the top of the plunger ? 

Ans. I think it was. 

X 424. Tor what purpose was the tight plunger changed 
into a sectional plunger, as we now see it in your exhibit? 

Aqis. I think for the purpose of pressing down over rubber. 

X 425. What was the advantage of having it made in sec- 
tions, for that purpose ? 

Ans. It would spread apart — the sections — and follow down 
against the sides of the cylinder, and close in at the bottom 
very nearly at right angles with the former. 

X 426. What is there in this machine, No. 2, to cause the 
sectional plunger to close in at the bottom very nearly at right 
angles with the former ? 

Ans. I do not remember distinctly what device I used ; 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 245 



but it could be done by pressing down a wedge or wedges be- 
tween the cylinder and plunger. 

X 427. I am not asking you what could be done ; but my 
question is, what is there in this machine to do it ? 

Ans. There is nothing that I can see in the cylinder ; but 
it might incline towards the center by pressing the plunger 
down hard on to the segmental ring-casting ; and I think I 
used some device to close that in which I don't remember — the 
thing that was used- 

[Adjourned to June 17, 9:30 a. m.] 



June 17, 1886, 10 a. m. 

X 428. In speaking of the sectional plunger, you say that 
"it might incline towards the center by pressing the plunger 
down hard on to the segmental ring." Do you state that as a 
matter of fact, or did you ever use it in that way ? 

Ans. I do not state that as a matter of fact. I don't know 
as I ever used it in that way. 

X 429. Do you state positively, that the tight plunger was 
changed into a sectional plunger " for the purpose of pressiug 
down over rubber," as stated in your answer to Int. 424, and 
not for any other purpose ? 

Ans. I think it was. I don't remember of any other pur- 
pose that that was made a sectional plunger. 

X 430. As a matter of fact, was not that plunger made in 
sections, so that it might more readily be removed from the 
pail after it was formed ? 

Ans. I do not remember that it was. I tried a great many 
experiments with that machine for the purpose of learning 
different points. I know that practice with pulp, in my ex- 
perience in handling of it, is better than theory. 

X 431. Are you willing to testify positively that the change 



246 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



in that plunger was not made for the purpose indicated in Int. 
430? 

\ Question 430 re-read] 

Ans. I am not willing to state positively; but my memory 
is that we didn't use it in that way — only in connection with 
the rubber. 

X 432. Are you willing to state that it would be even 
feasible, to use [that sectional plunger as it is at present con- 
structed, with its rough edges of wire gauze and adjustable 
joints, so as to press down over rubber, in forming a pail, with- 
out rupturing or making folds in the rubber by catching it 
in the joints ? 

Ans. I do not presume that was in the condition that it 
is now, when we used it ; but I will state positively that 
I did use it to press down over the rubber. 

X 433. What change in the condition of that sectional 
plunger has been made since it was used by you, as stated in 
your last answer ? 

Ans. I presume the gauze was on there smooth, and some- 
thing confined to the bottom of the plunger. 

X 434. What do you mean by " something confined to the 
bottom of the plunger " ? 

Ans. Either a smooth piece of iron or wood that would pass 
down over the rubber without injuring of it. 

X 435. Don't you know what, if anything, was used with 
that sectional plunger ? 

Ans. I do not remember what was used at the bottom ; but 
I had a handle to it to press it down with. 

X 436. When, if ever, did you use this sectional plunger to 
press down over the rubber, as stated in answer to Int. 432 ? 

Ans. I think it was the last time that I ever used it, in the 
fall of 1882, after trying my first iron machine. 

X 437. How late in the fall ? 

Ans. In September or October — along there. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 247 



X 438. How early did you first use the first irou machine 
above referred to? 

Ans. Some time during those two mouths. 

X 439. Are you positive about that ? 

Ans. I state it from memory — I have not examined the bills 
very much to see when the first iron machine was made — the 
exact date it was used. 

X 440. Did you not hear the testimony of Asa J. Lyon, in 
his answer to Int. 38, that this first iron machine was not set 
up until the last of November, or the 1st days of December, 
1882? 

Ans. I do not remember of hearing that ; but his memory, 
in relation to that fact, might be better than mine. 

X 441. Are the iron arms now on this sectional plunger the 
same that were put on when it was first changed from a tight 
to a sectional plunger ? 

Ans. I do not remember distinctly about that. 

X 442. Don't you know whether there have been two sets 
of iron arms on this sectional plunger, while it was used as a 
sectional plunger ? 

Ans. I will not state positively about that ? 

X 443. What is your recollection ? 

Ans. My recollection is that there may have been more 
than one set of hinges or arms. 

X 444. Who made the first set? 

Ans. I could not tell you. 

X 445. Was the idea of changing the tight plunger into a 
sectional plunger original with yourself, or was it suggested to 
you by any one else ? 

Ans. I do not remember its being suggested to me by any 
one else. I presume that it was my idea. 

X 445. Don't you know whether it was your own idea or 
not? 

Ans. I think it was. 



248 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



X 447. When did that idea first come to you ? 

[ Objected to — as having no bearing on the issue in Interfer- 
ence, and as immaterial.'] 

Ans. I think the last time that I experimented with that 
machine. 

X 448. When was that ? 

Ans. In the fall of 1882. 

X 449. Are you now able to state who made the soft wood 
plunger that was used with this machine, No. 2, and when it 
was made ? 

Ans. I am not able to state positively. 

X 450. What is your recollection about it? 

Ans. I presume Orel Stevens made it. 

X 451. When? 

Ans. I think some time in July, 1882. 

X 452. For what purpose was this soft wood plunger made ? 

Ans. It was probably made for some experiment that I 
wished to try. 

X 453. Don't you know for what purpose it was made ? 

Ans. I don't remember what particular point I wanted to 
demonstrate. 

X 454. Eeference has been made in your and Mr. Asa J. 
Lyon's testimony to no less than four pail machines, com- 
mencing with your machine, No. 2, and including three iron 
machines, as having been made from the middle or latter pare 
of June, 1882, to about August 18, 1883, and various modifi- 
cations of the same, before a satisfactory machine was pro- 
duced. Will you state about how much money was expended 
by the Fibre Ware Company in the building of these various 
machines, and the modifications that were made in them ? 

Ans. I cannot state. These machines were made during 
the progress of other work that was being done at Lyon, Bragg 
& Hubbard — with the exception of the first machine made 
in June, 1882. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



249 



X 455. Were not these expenditures made under your 
direction, and in carrying out largely recommendations made 
by you ? 

Ans. They were. 

X 456. Are not you able to state, approximately, the 
amount of money expended by the company, for the purposes 
stated in Int. 454 ? 

Ans. The amount was not very large ; but not having 
examined any of the bills since that time, I would not under- 
take to state any amount. 

X 457. What do you call very large ? Was it several 
thousand dollars ? 

Ans. I do not think that the expense amounted to several 
thousand dollars. 

X 458. Did it amount to $2,000 ? 

Ans. I think it did. 

X 459. More than that ? 

Ans. I think it did amount to more than that. 

X 460. Where did the principal expense come in ? 

Ans. It came in in changing, making alterations and in the 
construction of the machine. 

X 461. In what class of work? 

Ans. In the iron-work, patterns, &c. 

X 462. Do you know how much these amounted to, from 
June, 1882, to August, 1883 ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 463. How does it happen that your machine, No. 2, is 
the only survivor of all the pail machines that were constructed 
in the years 1882 and 1883, for the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. It was not in the Fibre Ware Company's Mills at the 
time of the fire. 

X 464. Where was it ? 

Ans. At my home in Waterville, Me. 
X 465. When was it carried there ? 
32— P. O. 



250 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. Some time in 1883. 

Ans. I do not remember the exact time. 

X 467. About what time ? 

Ans. I think it was in the fall ; it might have been the 
winter. 

X 468. What was your object in carrying this machine to 
your house ? 

Ans. I presume I wanted to take care of it. 

X 469. Why did you want to take care of it at that time ? 

Ans. I think one thing that I wanted to take care of it 
for, was to defend myself against some designing men that 
wanted to wrest my hard earned patent from me. 

X 470. Whom do refer to by the words " designing men," 
in your last answer ? 

Ans. I refer to that man right over there (pointing to Prof. 
Carmichael.) 

X 471. Why did you use the words "designing men"! 
Prof. Carmichael is only one, if you meant him. 

Ans. I do mean him. When he went home nettled, from 
the Fibre Ware Company's meeting, as I honestly believe, he 
was determined if he could get those men — some of them — to 
ring in with him, he would take my patent from me, that I 
worked so hard to get up. That is what I mean. 

X 472. Do you mean the meeting of the stockholders of 
the Fibre Ware Company held Sept. 7, 1883 ? 

Ans. I mean the meeting that he referred to in his exam- 
ination, when he said he went home nettled. 

X 473. Were you present at that meeting ? 

Ans. I was not. 

X 474. How then did you know what was said by Prof. 
Carmichael at that time, with reference to your patent ? 

Ans. I didn't say that I did know what he said at that 
time. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 251 



X 475. If you did not know the statements made by Prof. 
Carmichael, at that meeting, and his claim to priority of in- 
vention of the machine embodied in your patent, why did you 
take measures to defend yourself against him at that time ? 

Ans. The first information that I got on that point was 
from Franklin J. Eollins, of Portland, in the fall, I think, of 
1883. 

X 476. What information did you get from him ? 

Ans. He spoke something about Carmichael claiming to 
have given me the idea of my invention. I supposed at that 
time it was a joke — he was laughing at that time. I did not 
pay much attention to it at that time. 

X 477. In your last answer, I understood you to say, at 
first, the fall of 1882. Did you mean that this information 
from Mr. Eollins came to you at any time in 1882 ? 

Ans. I did not. 

X 478. When did you first learn that this claim of Prof. 
Carmichael was not a joke, and how did you learn it ? 

Ans. Some time during that year, 1883. 

X 479. Don't you know when you first learned it ? 

Ans. I don't remember the exact day — nothing to fix the 
date by. 

X 480. I don't ask the exact date — about what time ? 

Ans. It was in the fall of 1883 — some time during the fall. 

X 481. How did you learn that it was not a joke ? 

Ans. I learned from Charles B. Gardner, of Boston. 

X 482. What did he tell you ? 

Ans. He told me that Carmichael had made some such 
statement. 

X 483. "Some such statement" as what? 

Ans. That he had given me some ideas — which he knew 
nothing about whatever, till I told him. 

X 484. Did you learn of it from any other person ? 

Ans. I don't remember; I presume I did. 



252 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



X 485. What was there in the communications made by 
Gardner and others, which made it more serious than when 
you considered it a joke ? 

Ans. I asked Mr. Gardner if there was any truth in that 
report, and he told me that there was, but that it didn't 
amount to anything, or words to that effect. He (Mr. Gardner) 
was there at the mill and saw me work my machines and ex- 
periment with them ; and the reason that he made the remark, 
I suppose, " that it did not amount to anything," was that he 
knew that there was no truth in it whatever. 

X 486. What was there that alarmed you when you heard 
that this report was true, if it did not amount to anything, as 
Mr. Gardner said ? 

Ans. I wasn't any alarmed whatever, and I haven't been 
since. 

X 487. If you were preparing to defend yourself against 
Prof. Carmichael, why did you need to take this machine, Ex- 
hibit No. 2, out of the possession of the Fibre Ware Company 
and carry it to your own boarding-lruse ? 

Ans. That machine there, Exhibit No. 2, I had made in 
the month of June, 1882, to experiment with in different ways, 
and learn, with what knowledge and experience I had, every- 
thing that I could of the workings of liquid pulp. One idea 
that I had when I had that made, was the idea that I divulged 
in the month of May, 1882, to Joseph W. Libby, and I intended 
at my earliest opportunity to try that experiment, which I was 
satisfied that it was the right way to form hollow ware from 
wood fibre or other fibrous material. 

[Counsel for Carmichael moves that the whole of the above an- 
swer be stricken out as irresponsive and irrelevant, and requests 
the Examiner to repeat Int. 487.] 

X 488. [Int. 487 repealed.] 

Ans. I carried it to my home where I lived at that time. 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 253 



X 489. Will the Examiner please repeat Int. 487 with 
change of the word hoarding-house to home? 

[Int. 487 so repeated} 

Avs. I did not know what was going to take place, and I 
took this machine from the mill and carried it over to my home 
in Wateiville, Me. 

X 490. What do you have reference to by the expression : 
" I did not know what was going to take place," in your last 
answer ? 

Ans. I understood that there was some reference made at 
a meeting in relation to my invention, and I didn't know what 
might take place ; so I took this machine, Exhibit No. 2, and 
carried it home. 

X 491. What was the reference made to your machine and 
by whom made, as you understood it ? 

Arts. In reference to some members of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, who thought I ought not to have anything as I was in 
their employ — I think Mr. Gardner made reference to it. 

X 492. When was that meeting held, or about what time? 

Ans. Sometime in the fall of 1883. 

X 493. Was that the first you knew of this disposition on 
the part of the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. It was not. 

X 494. When did you first know that they entertained the 
views you have referred to ? 

Ans. In the spring of 1883. 

X 495. As a matter of fact, at the time you removed this 
machine, Exhibit No. 2, out of the mill of the Fibre Ware 
Company, and took it to your own home, were you not then 
having trouble with the Fibre Ware Company, and had not 
said company, previous to said time, filed a Bill in Equity against 
you in Kennebec County, in this State, and obtained an in- 
junction against your assigning that patent in question to any 
person ? 



254 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. They had filed a bill — 

[ Question re-read by Examiner, without request] 

They had filed a Bill in Equity. I was having trouble in 
regard to my patent. 

X 496. Had or not an injunction been served on you, re- 
straining you from assigning your patent to any person, before 
you removed machine, No. 2, from the mill of the Fibre Ware 
Company to your own home ? 

Ans. There had been, before I removed my Exhibit No. 2, 
to my own home. 

X 497. Have you not previously stated to Mr. Asa J. Lyon 
and others, that you removed this machine from the mill to 
your home on account of your trouble with the Eibre Ware 
Company ? 

Ans. I think very likely I did. Carmichael, I supposed, 
was a member of that company. 

X 498. Did Prof. Carmichael, to your knowledge, have any- 
thing to do with the bringing of that bill, or know anything of 
its contents, until the commencement of this examination ? 

Ans. I don't know that he did. 

X 499. On what ground was the Fibre Ware Company pro- 
ceeding against you at that time ? 

Ans. On the ground that I was in their employ, and using 
their money. 

X 500. What pay did you receive from the Fibre Ware 
Company, as their superintendent? 

Ans. Three dollars ($3) a day. 

[Adjourned to 2:30 p. m., same day.] 



June 16, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 
X 501. Did not said Fibre Ware Company, in their pro- 
ceedings against you, claim that in consideration of your $3 a 
day, you agreed to make such improvements as you could in 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 255 



the processes for producing their ware ; and that when com- 
pleted, said improvements should become the sole and exclusive 
property of said company? 

[Objected to — a$ immaterial to the issue and as not calling fo^ 
the best evidence pertaining to the matter inquired of. Counsel 
for JBodge do not wish to interfere with the fullest cross-examina- 
tion of this witness in anything pertaining to this issue.'] 

Ans. I believe that they claimed some such agreement ; 
but I do not remember of ever making any agreement of that 
kind. 

X 502. Did the officers of said company not further claim, 
that you had conducted your experiments in their mills, with 
their machinery, and at their expense, and that you were ad- 
vised and aided by certain members of said corporation at va- 
rious and frequent times, and repeatedly during said period of 
experiments and of perfecting said improvements ? 

[Same objection — as last, and further, as calling for parol 
evidence to prove matter of record.] 

Ans. I think there was some such claim. 

X 503. Did they onot further charge you with violating 
your agreement with them and that the success of their busi- 
ness was imperiled by your refusal to assign to said company 
the patent issued to you, now in Interference ? 

[Same objection — and motion is made to strike the last ques- 
tion, as well as the two preceding ones, from the record, as foreign 
to the issue.] 

Ans. I presume there was something of that sort. 

X 504. Please state whether or not, substantially, the above 
claims were made by the officers of the said company, against 
you in the year 1883 ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. My memory is that there was substantially such 
claims. 

X 505. Did you make any answer to these charges ? 



256 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Ans. I did, through my Attorney, Wm. H. Newell, of Lew- 
iston, Maine. 

X 506. Did Mr. Newell know what answer to make to the 
charges, except as you instructed him ? 

[Same objection and motion.'] 

Ans. I presume he did not. 

X 507. Did you, at that time, admit or deny the charges 
of the officers of the Fibre Ware Company ? 
[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I denied those charges. 

X 508. Did you then claim that the experiments which 
you had been carrying on with reference to a pail machine, 
had been conducted at a merely nominal expense ? 

\_Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I don't clearly remember how my Attorney worded 
those claims, but think very likely that that was so. 

X 509. Did you also then claim that you had been carry- 
ing on said experiments without the consent of the Fibre Ware 
Company, or its officers ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. My Attorney wrote those claims that I made ; but I 
do not distinctly recall the whole of them. 

X 510. Did you also then claim that you had been carrying 
on said experiments, at times when not engaged in the employ- 
ment of the Fibre Ware Company, in and about its mills ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I think there was such a claim. 

X 511. And did you also claim, that you had carried on 
such experiments without the use of the machinery of the 
Fibre Ware Company ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I do not remember about that one. These claims were 
written out by my attorney, after my conversation with him, 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 257 



and I was not present when it was done. I left the matter en- 
tirely in his hands, to make such answer as he saw tit. 

X 512. Do you mean by that, that your attorney had any 
knowledge of these matters which concerned you personally, 
other than what you communicated to him ? 

[Same objection and motion/ and a general objection and 
motion is now made to any further questions following out this 
line of cross-examination, as pertaining to matters of record re- 
garding the question at issue between the Fibre Ware Company 
and the witness, as to the preliminary injunction.] 

Ans. He did not have any knowledge except what I gave 
him, but worded his answer to suit himself, I suppose. 

X 513. Do you mean by your last answer that your attor- 
ney did not put into proper language the statements you then 
made to him ? 

[Same objection.'] 

Ans. I mean by that he, being a lawyer, worded his an- 
swer as he saw fit to offset the claims of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany. 

X 514 Do you mean to say, that your attorney did not 
correctly set forth your claims as you made them to him, in 
relation to the matters then in controversy with the Fibre 
Ware Company ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. I do not remember what claims I set forth to him ; 
but he made answer to the Fibre Ware Company claims, I think, 
as nearly correct as theirs were against me. 

X 515. Were the claims you then made in answer to the 
Fibre Ware Company true ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. I stated the case to my attorney at the time, substan- 
tially as it was. He, being a lawyer, made this answer to suit 
himself. I have forgotten the exact wording in his answer to 
the claims of the Fibre Ware Company. 
33— P. 0. 



258 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



X 516. How could your attorney make answers to matters 
of fact, within your knowledge and not within his, unless you 
instructed him what the facts were? 

[Same objection.'] 

Ans. I told him at the time the facts as they were. 

X 517. Did you instruct him as to the matters of your de- 
fense which I have already inquired of you in Ints. 508, 509, 
510 and 511? 

[Said Ints. and Answers thereto, read to witness.] 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. When I called to see my attorney, at Lewiston, Me., 
I told him the facts substantially as they were — put the mat- 
ter in his hands to make such answer as he saw fit. 

X 518. Were such claims as are embodied in the above Ints. 
508-511, inclusive, if made in your defense to the suit of the 
Fibre Ware Company, true ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. Substantially, they were. 



He-direct Examination by Mr. Lange. 

E. D. 519. You have stated in your direct* examination, 
that at the time you called on Dr. Jones, on the 11th day of 
July, 1882, and got the rubber he said he had purchased a 
short time before, and he let you have it at cost ; and in your 
cross-examination, that you had obtained a duplicate bill of the 
same rubber as purchased by him, which bill you produced. 
Will you now introduce that bill as an exhibit ? 
N Ans. I will and do. 

[Said bill is introduced and marked, " Bodge Exhibit No. 24, 
Jones' Bill for Rubber— A. H. B., JSx'r, Jnne 17, 1886." 

E. D. 520. You stated in your cross-examination, that you 
were absent from Waterville from the 19th to the 26th of July, 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 259 



1882. Dees that mean inclusive of both dates, and were you 
absent from Waterville all of each day ? 

Ans. It does not. T returned from Gorham to Waterville 
on the 21st day of Jul}', leaving South Windham at half-past 
12 P. m., arriving in Waterville at about 5 p. m. The 22d day 
of July, I left Waterville for Gorham about 2 P. m., arriving 
at South Windham about half-past 6, on the 22d. 

E. D. 521. You have stated that you did not see Prof. 
Carmichael in Brunswick, except on the 6th and 11th days of 
July, 1882. Were you in Brunswick after the 26th day of 
July in that year ? 

Ans. I was. 

R D. 522. Did you see Mr. C. C. Hutchins in Brunswick, 
at any such visits after the 26th day of July, 1882 ? 

Ans. I did. 

E. D. 523. Since the commencement of these Interference 
proceedings, have you refreshed your memory concerning events 
or dates pertaining to your invention, or to the construction of 
machines embodying the same, which events or dates are sub- 
sequent to August 1, 1882 ? 

[ Objected to — as leading. ~\ 

Ans. ' I have not very much. 

E. D. 524. To what events or dates have you given most 
of your time and attention ? 

Ans. To events and dates in the month of July, 1882. 

E. D. 525. At the time you removed your machine, Exhibit 
No. 2, from the works of the Fibre Ware Company to your 
house, did you then know that Prof. Carmichael was a large 
stockholder in said company ? 

Ans. I did. 

E. D. 526. (De bene esse.) Your attention was directed in 
the cross-examination, to the preliminary injunction served on 
you, under the suit of the Fibre Ware Company against you. 



260 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



Will you please state whether that company pushed the suit 
against you to a hearing, or whether said suit was dropped ? 

Ans. It was not pushed against me. 

E. D. 527. (Be bene esse.) Before, during and subsequent 
to the suit brought against you by the Fibre Ware Company, 
in which a preliminary injunction was served upon you, was 
there or not considerable ill feeling between the members and 
officers of said company and yourself ? 

Ans. There was. 

E. D. 528. (De bene esse.) Eeferring to the syndicate which 
took hold of the affairs of the Fibre Ware Company, will you 
please state whether you amicably adjusted matters pertaining 
to your invention with said syndicate or any of the parties 
thereto ? 

[ Objected to — as leading.'] 

Ans. I did with Franklin J. Eollins, and others. 

E.JD. 529. Will you please state whether you are interested, 
directly or indirectly, in the Indurated Fibre Company, the 
assignee-owner of your Letters Patent now in Interference ? 

Ans. I am not. 

E, D. 530. Other than as an inventor of the subject matter 
of this Interference, are you interested directly or indirectly in 
these Interference proceedings, or in the result that may come 
from them ? 

Ans. I am not. 



Me-Cross-Examination by Me. Libby. 

E. X 531. In the dates you have stated in your answer to 
Int. 280, as being absent from Waterville, are the first and last 
dates mentioned in each case, included in, or excluded from the 
number of days you were absent? 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 261 



\_ Objected to — as not proper re-cross-examination in present 
form of question.'] 

£A?iswer to Int. 280 read to witness.~\ 

[Adjourned to June 18, — 9:30 A. M.] 



June 18, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 

Ans. My memory is that I left Waterville on the 1st for 
Gorham and remained until the 3d day of July, 1882, about 5 
p. m. I left Waterville on the 6th about 9 a. m. ; stopped in 
Brunswick till the afternoon train ; went from there to Gorham 
and remained there till the 10th ; stopped at Brunswick the 
night of the 10th ; left Brunswick for Waterville about half 
past 2 p. m. on the 11th ; I left Waterville for Gorham on the 
13th ; I think I remained in Gorham till the 17th ; left Water- 
ville again on the 19th and remained in Gorham till the 21st ; 
left Waterville on the 22d at 2 P. M. and remained in Gorham 
until the 26th. 

E. X 532. How long does it take to go from Waterville to 
Brunswick, by train ? 

Ans. I should judge somewhere in the neighborhood of 
two hours. 

E. X 533. How long from Waterville to Portland ? 

Ans. In the neighborhood of 3 hours — SJ4 perhaps. 

E. X 534 How long from Waterville to South Gorham, 
or South Windham ? 

Ans. If you make close connection of the trains, some- 
where about 4 hours. 

E. X 535. Do you have to take another line of railroad, 
when you reach Portland, to go to South Gorham or South 
Windham? 

Ans. We do. 

E. X 536. In your answer to Int. 521, you state that you 
were in Brunswick, after the 26th day of July, in the year 



262 JOSEPH G. BODGE. 



1882. Please state what day or days yon were in Brunswick, 
in 1882, after July 26th. 

Ans. I cannot fix those dates. 

R. X 537. Cannot you fix the month or months ? 

Ans. I presume I could by further search, but I cannot fix 
the dates now. 

R. X 538. How many times were you there, after July 
26th, in that year ? 

Ans. I remember of being there twice, and I think very 
likely I was there more than that. 

E. X 539. Was the object of any of these visits to meet 
Prof. Carmichael ? 

Ans. I do not remember that they were. 

E. X 540. Did you call upon Prof. Carmichal after July 
26th, in that year ? 

Ans. I do not remember that I did. 

E. X 541. You speak, in your answer to Int. 522, of seeing 
Mr. Hutchins in Brunswick after July 26, 1882. What time 
do you refer to, as having seen him ? 

Ans. I did not refer to either time ; I may have seen him 
at both times I was there. 

E. X 542. What do you mean by " both times " ? 

Ans. I mean both times that I was there. I remember of 
being there twice and I may have been there more than that — 
after July 26th. 

E. X 543. Eeference has been made to July 26, 1882. 
Do you mean that you were in Brunswick and saw either Prof. 
Carmichael or Mr. Hutchins, on July 26, 1882 ? 

Ans. I do not mean that. 

E. X 544. In your answer to Int. 527, you state that there 
was considerable ill-feeling between you and the members and 
officers of the Fibre Ware Company, before, during and subse- 
quent to the suit brought against you, in which a preliminary 



JOSEPH G. BODGE. 263 



injunction was served upon you. Who were the officers of 
the Fibre Ware Company during the period referred to ? 

Ans. I think John T. Richards was the President of the 
Company ; I think Franklin J. Rollins was the Treasurer ; 
Charles D. Brown, H. J. Chisholm and others — I don't recall 
their names — were Directors. 

R. X 545. In your answer to Int. 526, you say that the 
suit was not pushed against you. Will you please state whether 
or not the injunction was ever removed, or the suit discontinued 
until after you had assigned your patent to Mr. F. J. Rollins 
and his associates. 

I Objected to — as calling fer parol evidence to prove a matter 
of record^ 

Ans. I do not remember that it was removed, till after I 
made an assignment of my patent to Franklin J. Rollins and 
his associates. 

R. X 546. When did you cease to act as superintendent of the 
business of the Fibre Ware Company, or of its successor, the 
Indurated Company ? 

[ Objected to — not proper re-cross-examination.~\ 

Ans. I never had any notification from any of the officers 
of the Fibre Ware Company, that my services was not required. 
I haven't been employed by the Indurated Fibre Company since 
May— I think it was May— 1885. 

R. X 547. How did you happen to leave their employ ? 

\ Same objection.'] 

Ans. I left their employ on my own free will and accord. 
They wanted me to superintend the buildings, making of the 
machinery, and starting new mills wherever they sold rights to 
manufacture. It would take me from my home most of the 
time, and I did not care about any such employment. 

R. X 548. What is your present business ? 

Ans. Before this came up, I was repairing my house in 
Gorham, Me. 



264 EDWARD G. O'BRICW. 



K. X 549. Since the case came tip, how long have you been* 
employed upon it? 

Ans. I have not been employed at all upon it — I mean 
upon this case. 

R. X 550. I notice that physically you are a large man. 
Will you kindly tell me your ordinary weight ? 

[Same objection as before. J 

Ans. I think at present I weigh about 260 pounds. 

JOSEPH G. BODGE. 
[Adjourned to June 19, 1886, 9 A. M.] 



June 19, 1886, 9 a. m. 

Edwakd C. O'Brion, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say, in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by Wilbur E. Lunt, Esq , of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Edward C. O'Brion ; 35 years; St. Albans, Vermont ; 
General Railway News Agent. 

2. Where were you living in the year 1882, from January 
until October? 

Ans. In Deering, Me. 

3. And where employed ? 

Ans. In the office of the Eibre Ware Company, Exchange 
St., Portland. 

4. State whether or not in the summer of 1882, at the office 
of the Fibre Ware Company, in Portland, you saw any water 
pails made of wood pulp. 

f Objected to — as leading.'] 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 265 



Ans. To the best of my recollection, I did. 

5. Where were the works of the Fibre Ware Company at 
that time ? 

Ans. At Waterville, Me. 

6. Where did the pails come from that you saw, or think 
you saw, as you have stated ? 

[Objected to — unless calling for the personal knowledge of the 
witness.] 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they came 
from Waterville. I didn't come with them. 

7. In the month of October did you make any change in 
your place of residence and employment ? And if so, state 
what. 

Ans. I did. I went to Waterville on the 17th day of Oc- 
tober, 1882, to take charge of the books, and to do the writing 
in the Fibre Ware Company's office there located. 

8. How long did you remain there so employed? 
Ans. Till the burning of the buildings in 1884. 

9. What did you do at the works of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany during that time or any of it ? 

Ans. I kept the regular set of books, time-book, the account 
of ware that the men made, attended to the marking and the 
shipping of the goods, the general correspondence of the com- 
pany, and the errands partially, and helped on the experiments 
with the pail machine and baby-jumper machine. 

10. State whether the mill in which basins were manufac- 
tured — I mean that part of the works not including the Treat- 
ment-House — were in operation when you went to Waterville 
in October, 1882. 

Ans. They were not 

11. For what reason, if you know, were operations sus- 
pended ? 

Ans. The men were at work on the Treatment-House, build- 
ing the Treatment-House. 
34— P. 0. 



266 EDWABD C. O'BRION. 



12. If the works were started after your arrival, when were 
they started up ? 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge they were staited on 
November 30, 1882. 

13. State whether or not, while you were keeping the books 
at the works in Waterville, any daily record of the work upon 
which the men were employed by the company at its works 
was kept by you. 

Ans. There was a record of the time the men spent in 
forming, sandpapering and treating the wares ; and a record of 
all the employment of the men in and about the mill, with the 
exception of Mr. Bodge's and my own time. 

14. State whether or not after your arrival at the works in 
October, 1882, and during that month, you saw there any iron 
machine for the manufacture of pails from pulp. 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge and belief, the iron pail 
machine was on the truck that was used in the mill, and setting 
in that portion of the mill used for packing and horse-shed and 
sand-papering departments ; meaning some portion of that part 
of the building. 

15. Was that machine afterward set up in the mill? 
Ans. To my best knowledge and belief it was. 

16. Previous to its being set up, state whether any work 
was performed for the purpose of setting the machine up in 
ciqe proper position. 

Ans. There was work performed for that purpose. 

17. What work was performed, and who performed it, and 
when ? 

Ans. A frame was built to set the machine on ; the work 
was done by 0. C. Stevens, Nov. 25, 1882, Nov. 27, 1882, Nov. 
28, 1882, and some work on the same frame by G-. C. Stevens, 
Nov. 28, 1882. 

18. Did you make entries upon those days of the work so 
performed ? 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 267 



Ans. I did. 

19. What was the book called in which you made those 
entries ? 

Ans. I called it the time-book and report of goods made 
and work done by the men. 

20. Will you please produce that book, that the Examiner 
may mark it to be used as an exhibit in this case, reference 
being made to the dates which you have already mentioned, and 
to dates hereafter to be referred to, when required ? 

Ans. I will. Here is the book. 

\_Said book introduced and marked "Bodge Exhibit Fibre 
Ware Company Time Book, 1882 and 1883,— A H. D., ExW, 
June 19, 1886."] 

21. State whether or not any record was kept of the specific 
work performed by yourself and by Mr. Bodge. 

Ans. There was no such record kept — only Mr. Bodge's 
time as Superintendent. I wish to amend that by saying Mr. 
Bodge's time, as Superintendent, was not kept in that book. 

22. When was the iron pail machine, to which you have 
referred, set up ? 

Ans. I shall have to look at the time book to refresh my 
memory. I see, by referring to the time-book, that 0. C. 
Stevens worked on the pail machine Dec. 12, 18S2 ; to the best 
of my knowledge and belief they were setting it up at that 
time. 

23. After the machine was set up, state whether or not it 
was operated. And if so, who operated it ? 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it was oper- 
ated as soon as set up, by Mr. Bodge and some other of the 
men in the mill. 

24. Were any pails produced on that machine? 
Ans. There were. 

25. State whether you were present when such pails were 
produced, and if so, when ? 



268 EDWAKD C. O'BRION. 



Ans. I was present at the mill, practically all the time 
during working hours, sometimes near or about the pail ma- 
chine, and saw pails formed, to the best of my knowledge and 
belief, in December, 1882. 

26. State whether or not you assisted Mr. Bodge in work- 
ing that machine. 

Ans. I did. 

27. While you were so assisting him were pails made on 
that machine? 

[ Objected to — as leading.'] 
Ans. There were. 

28. At what time did you first see pails made on that ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. I cannot give the exact answer for that. 

29. State as nearly as you can. 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge and belief in December, 
1882. 

30. State whether or not after the first iron machine was 
operated any other iron machine or machines for making pails 
were built and operated at the works of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany in Waterville ? 

Ans. There was one new iron machine built and the old 
one was changed over and used also. 

31. When was the old machine changed over and used ? 

Ans. I shall have to refer to the time-book. I find by re- 
ferring to the book that C. G. Libby worked on the pail ma- 
chine February 13, 1883. J. W. Libby worked on the same on 
the same date. O. C. Stevens on the pail machine February 
14, 1883. February loth, J. W. Libby worked on the pail ma- 
chine. February 16th, J. W. Libby worked on the pail machine, 
March 16, 1883, also worked on the 19th ; and Newel Hanson 
worked on the pail machine making a wire form for covering 
the former, so called, of the pail machine. J. W. Libby and 
Newel Hanson worked on the pail machine March 26, 1883. 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 269 



Newel Hanson worked on the pail machine March 27th. 
J. W. Libby and Newell Hanson worked on the pail machine 
Wednesday, March 28, 1883. C. G. Libby worked on the pail 
machine March 29th. J. W. Libby and N. P. Hanson on pail 
machine March 30th. J. W. Libby worked on hoops a portion 
of March 30th, and N. P. Hanson worked on the wheel a por- 
tion of March 30th. J. W. Libby also worked on the following 
days a whole or a part of the time on pail-machines in April,. 
1883, namely :— the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 17th, 19th, 
20th, 27th. 1ST. P. Hanson also worked on the following days, 
a whole or a part of the time, in April, 1883, on pail-machines, 
namely: — the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 
17th, 19th, 20th, 25th, 27th. On April 25 and 26, J. W. Libby 
worked on perforating pail die. By reference to the book I 
find that J. W. Libby worked on making pails May 1, 1883, 
and N. P. Hanson on the same day. On May 4, J. W. Libby 
and N. P. Hanson worked on No. 3 die and pail machine. 

32. Can you state whether the machine was operated daily 
during the month of May, 1883, or whether you assisted Mr. 
Bodge during that month in operating it? If yea please do so. 

[ Objected to — as leading. ,] 

Arts. To the best of my knowledge and belief it was not 
operated every day, and I assisted Mr. Bodge at different times 
in the month of May in forming pails on that machine. 

33. Were any baby-jumpers formed on that machine ? 

Ans. To the best of my belief there were on that machine, 
using a different die or form. 

34. Do you find on reference to the time-book that any 
pails were formed or that the machine was operated in the 
month of June, 1883 ? 

Ans. I do ; on June 12, 1883, N. P. Hanson's entry on time 
book is " making pails, &c." 

35. When were the baby-jumpers made on that machine ? 



270 EDWAKD C. O'BRION. 



Ans. July 2, 1883, and July 3d, N". P. Hanson worked on 
pails and baby-jumpers, at forming them. 

36. State what was done, if anything, to the pails and baby- 
jumpers so formed after they were removed from the machine. 

Ans. Some of them were dried in the Treatment-House, 
sand-papered, chemically treated ; some of the pails were 
hooped and set in the office for exhibition — public, others were 
left about the mill in different stages of completion. 

37. State whether any other work was done on that pail- 
machine iu the month of July, 1883, f.nd if the same was op- 
erated, and if so by whom. 

Ans. Perforating pail-form, &c, F. M. Hanson, July 3d, 4th, 
and 5th ; 6th F. M. Hanson drilling pail-form ; 7th F. M. Han- 
son drilling die, &c. F. M. Hanson drilling pail-form July 9th, 
10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th. July 23d, N. P. Han- 
son making rubber-bag for pail-machine, C. J. Libby making 
rubber-bag for pail-machine, &c. July 24th, N. P. Hanson 
rubber-bag for pail machine. July 27th, N. P. Hanson on 
pails &c. ; 28th, N. P. Hanson on pails ; July 30, N. P. Hanson on 
pails &c. ; July 31, N. P. Hanson on pails, &c. 

38. In the month of August, 1883, was that machine op- 
erated, and if so. when and by whom ? 

Ans. It was operated in August, 1883. August 8th, N". P. 
Hanson worked forming pails, &c. ; August 13th, N". P. Hanson 
worked one-half day repairing and one-half day hooping pails ; 
the pails had been treated that he hooped, with the exception 
of one or two, which he used as samples ; August 15th, N. P. 
Hanson worked on pail machine, &c. ; August 16th, N. P. 
Hanson and Frank H. Hanson worked on setting pail machine ; 
on August 17th, 1ST. P. and F. H. Hanson worked on pail 
machine. August 18th, N. P. Hanson worked on pail machine 
and F. H. on pail machine and mixing stock ; on August 20th, 
N. P. and F. H. Hanson worked on pail machine and Frank 
Boynton on pail machine, &c. ; 21st, N. P. Hanson, on pail 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 271 



machine and pails ; August 22d, N. P. Hanson making pails, 
&c, and same on the 23d. Amos Low, on August 23d and 
24th, worked on pails and packing ; on August 24th, N. P. 
Hanson worked on pails; same on 27th and 29th of August; 
same on 25th. Amos Low worked on pails and packiug, 25th 
of August ; on pails the 27th, and on pails and packing the 
28th and 29th ; August 30th, N. P. Hanson worked on gauze 
for pails ; on the 31st, on pails and machine; N.P.Hanson 
also worked on pails the 28th of August. 

39. Will you please continue and state what was done in 
the way of operating the pail machine and making pails at the 
works of the Fibre Ware Company in the month of Sep- 
tember, 1883 ? 

Arts. On Sept. 1st and 3d, N. P. Hanson worked on making 
pails, &c. ; Sept. 3d, Henry McCall worked on making pails, 
and in Treatment-House ; Sept. 4th, Henry McCall and N. P. 
Hanson, making pails, &c. ; 5th, N. P. Hanson on pails and 
forms; 5th, Henry McCall sand-papering pails, &c. ; 5th, Frank 
Boy nton sand-papering pails; 6th, J. S. Light same; 6th and 
7th, N". P. Hanson on pails, &c. ; 7th and 8th, J. S. Light sand- 
papering pails ; N. P. Hanson on pails, &c, 8th ; N. P. Hanson 
on the 10th, on pails and pail machine ; J. S. Light sand-pa- 
pering pails, 10th ; 11th, J. S. Light on pails and basins, and 
Henry McCall soaking pails, &c, and N. P. Hanson on pails 
and pail machine; 12th, Frank Boynton making pails ; 12th 
and 13th, J. S. Light sand-papering pails, &c. ; 13th, K P. 
Hanson hooping and pail machine; 13th, Henry McCall treat- 
ing pails, &c, and Frank Boynton making pails, &c. ; 14th, 
Frank Boynton on new pail machine, &c, and J. S. Light sand- 
papering pails, &c. ; 15th, J. S. Light sand-papering pails, and 
N. P. Hanson on new pail machine ; and F. Boynton on new 
pail machine on 15th and 17th ; J. S. Light and Henry McCall 
on pails and basins the 17th ; 18th, N. P. Hanson on pail ma- 
chine ; 19th, N. P. Hanson painting pails, &c. ; 20th, K P. 



272 EDWARD C. O'BRION. 



Hanson hooping pails, &c. ; 21st, on pail machine, &c. ; same 
on 22d, 24«h ; N. P. Hanson on 25th, on pail machine and pails ; 
on 26th, same; 27th, N. P. Hanson hooping pails; 28th, same 
hooping and painting pails; on the 28th, it should be 29th, 
hooping and fixing pails. 

40. Will you please state what, if anything, was done at 
the works of the Fibre Ware Company or by men in their 
employ in the month of October, 1883, in operating the pail- 
machine upon which parts were made on May 1st, as you have 
stated, and in making pails and also in the building of a new 
pail-machine. 

Ans. N. P. Hanson Oct. 1st on patterns &c, for new pail 
machine ; Oct. 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th on pails, &c. ; 6th, 8th and 9th, 
N. P. Hanson making patterns in Oakland, same on the 10th. 
N. P.Hanson on pails, &c, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th 
and 18th ; that is all to my knowledge. 

41. Will you please state what was done by any employees 
of the Fibre Ware Company in the months of November and 
December, 1883, in the construction and operation of pail-ma- 
chines and the making of pails. 

Ans. Nov. 27th and 28th, 1883, N. P. Hanson worked on 
pail-machine, &c. ; also worked on pail-machine the 29th of 
Nov., also on the 30th of November on the pail-machine, &c. 
December 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, N. P. Hanson worked on pail- 
machine, &c. ; Dec. 12th, A. J. Creamer and Chas. Butterfield 
worked on pails and repairs. Dec. 13th the same two on pails, 
&c. ; the same on the 14th and 15th; on the 17th and 18th A. 
J. Creamer on pails and repairing building ; on the 27th A. J. 
Creamer repairing pipes and on pails ; A. J. Creamer making 
pails, &c, Dec. 28th, 29th, 30th and 31st. I will also state 
that during nearly all the time from the last of August, 18S3, to 
the 31st of December, 1883, I assisted these different parties in 
making pails and work upon the pail machine. 



EDWARD C. O'BEION. 273 



42. Up to what time were the works of the Fibre Ware 
Company at Waterville, operated and run ? 

Ans. To the best of my belief, they practically stopped 
running the 31st of December, 1883. 

43. How long did you remain in Waterville, after Decem- 
ber, 1883 ? 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge, it was the last week 
of March following, March, 1884. 

44. Did anything happen to the mills while you were there ? 
$ Ans. They were completely burned. 

45. When were they burned ? 

Ans. I shall have to refer to the letter-book. 

46. Can you state how long after January 1, 1884, the fire 
occurred ? 

Ans. To the best of my knowledge it was between the 
first and fifteenth of March. 

47. State if you know, whether any pails and other ware 
were taken from the works of the Fibre Ware Company and 
sent away, in the month of August, 1883 ? 

Ans. During the latter part of August, 1883, 1 packed up 
pails in different stages of completion, baby-jumpers, and 
shipped them, or expressed them, to Portland. 

48. To whom did you ship them ? 

Ans. To the Directors of the Fibre Ware Company. 

49. Can you state whether or not, while the first iron 
-f machine was being operated in December, 1882, any persons 

visited the works and witnessed the operation of said machine ? 

Ans. To my best knowledge and belief there were. 

50. Who were they ? 

Ans. My wife, Mrs. O'Brion ; Mrs. Bodge, the Superintend- 
ant's wife ; J. M. Wall. I don't think of any others now. 

[Adjourned here at 12.30 p. m., to 2 P. M. of the same day.] 
35— P. o. 



274 EDWARD C. O'BRION. 



June 19, 1886, 2 p. m. 

51. When you shipped the pails and baby-jumpers to Port- 
land, in August, 1883, to what place in Portland were they 
shipped ? 

Ans. To my best recollection they were shipped to Mr. 
Chisholm's Office, 48M Exchange Street. 

52. Calling your attention to Bodge Exhibit No. 2, wooden 
machine, do you know anything concerning the removal of 
that machine from the works of the Fibre Ware Company, in 
Waterville ? If so, what ? 

Ans. I do. I helped Mr. Bodge take it down — or helped 
a man take it down and put it into a wagon and carry it over 
to his barn, or stable, on Mill Street, Waterville. 

53. Take it down from where ? 

Ans. It was stored in the L part of the mill building — 
Eibre Ware Company's — up stairs, nearly over the sand-paper- 
ing room. 

54. When was this so removed ? 

Ans. To the best of my recollection, the latter part of Sep- 
tember — or first part of October, 1883. 



Cross-Examination by C. F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Carmichael. 

X 55. How do you fix the date of the removal of this ma- 
chine, Bodge Exhibit No. 2, from the mill to his barn ? 

Ans. By the fact that Mr. Bodge and I went a gunning a 
few times the latter part of September and October, and in my 
best recollection, it was during that time. 

X 56. Do the two events connect themselves together in 
any way ? 

Ans. Just as a matter of recollection, as near as I can place 
the time. 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 275 



X 57. For what reason was the machine removed by Mr. 
Bodge ? 

Ans. To protect himself — or to be used in testimony in re- 
gard to his claim of the patent for forming pails and hollow 
ware by this process. 

X 58. Was there a suit then pending against him by the 
Fibre Ware Company, about this patent ? 

Ans. I don't remember any suit; but there was more or 
less talk in regard to the ownership of the patent. 

X 59. Talk by whom ? 

Ans. By Mr. Bodge, and different members of the Fibre 
Ware Company. 

X 60. Don't you know, that about the 1st of June, 1883, 
the Fibre Ware Company brought a Suit in Equity, in Kenne- 
bec County, in this State, and obtained an injunction against 
his assigning that patent ? 

[ Objected to — not matter opened on direct examination — irrele- 
vant.'] 

Ans. I do know now. I did not know the date of the suit 
until Mr. Libby told me by asking the question. 

X 61. Do you now remember that Mr. Bodge was having 
trouble with the Fibre Ware Company, at this time, about his 
patent? 

[Same objection.'] 

Ans. I do. 

X 62. In your answer to Int. 42, you state that the works 
of the Fibre Ware Company " practically stopped running the 
31st of December, 1883." Will you state what brought the 
operations of the company to a close, and what their financial 
condition had been during the year 1883. 

Ans. I think the stockholders were tired of putting in 
money, and receiving no returns. The state of their finances was 
varied ; sometimes they had considerable money, at other times, 



276 EDWAKD C. O'BRION. 



not much. At the wind up they didn't have enough to settle 
with me. 

X 63. Have they ever settled with you ? 

Ans. Not in full — although I have had to give them a re- 
ceipt. 

X 64. Calling your attention to Bodge Exhibit Sectional 
Plunger, now standing by the side of Bodge Exhibit No. 2, 
will you state when and where you first saw that sectional 
plunger ? ™ 

[ Objected to — as manifestly improper cross-examination — 
no allusion or inquiry having been made of this witness concern- 
ing that exhibit ; that if the counsel for Carmichael inquires of 
this witness concerning Exhibit Sectional Plunger, he makes him 
his own witness, .] 

[ Counsel for Carmichael respectfully claims that the answer 
to Int. 52 relates to this exhibit.'] 

Ans. To my best recollection, I saw it stored with machine, 
Exhibit No. 2, in the loft of the L of the Fibre Ware Company's 
building, nearly over the sand-papering room, some time in the 
fall of 1882. 

X 65. Was it removed by Mr. Bodge to his barn, at the 
same time that he removed Bodge Exhibit No. 2, as previously 
stated by you ? 

[Same objection.'] 

Ans. To my best recollection, it was. m 

X 66. Was this sectional plunger used with this machine 
No. 2, after you went to Waterville, Oct. 17, 1882 ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. It was not used in the mill at any time after I was 
there Oct. 17, 1882 — never used in forming a pail, while I was in 
the mill. 

X 67. In answer to Int. 4, where the words, " in the sum- 
mer of 1882 " were inserted in the question, you said that, to 
the best of your recollection, you saw some water pails made of 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 277 



wood pulp in the office of the Fibre Ware Company, in Port- 
land. Can you fix the time definitely when you first saw any 
pails, made at Waterville, in the office of the Fibre Ware 
Company at Portland ? 

Ans. I cannot, more definitely, than between the first of 
August, 1882, and the 17th day of October, 1882. 

X 68. Do you know on what machine, or by what process, 
any pails that you saw at the office of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany at Portland, some time between August 1st and October 
17, 1882, were made ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 69. When was the first pail made at the Fibre Ware 
Company's works, in Waterville, after you went there, October 
17, 1882? 

Ans. To the best of my recollection, it was shortly after 
December 12, 1882. 

X 70. How man) different machines for making pails were 
made for the company, in Waterville, after you went there 
October 17, 1882, up to the time that they practically ceased 
to do business, December 31, 1883 ? 

Ans. Two entire machines, and forms and domes for different 
articles. 

X 71. In your answer to Int. 40, you state that N. P. Han- 
son worked October 1, 1883, on patterns for a new pail ma- 
chine. Which machine was referred to in your answer ? 

Ans. The last machine made for forming pails. 

X 72. In your answer to Int. 31, you give the time of the 
workmen in changing over an old machine, commencing with 
February 13, 1883, and extending to May 4th of that year. 
What machine was changed over during that period referred 
to in your answer ? 

Ans. The first pail machine that I saw at the mill. 

X 73. Was that an iron machine ? 

Ans. It was. 



278 EDWARD C. ? BRION. 



X 74. How long were the workmen engaged in changing 
over this machine ? 

Ans. I cannot remember that. 

X 75. Calling your attention to your answer to Int. 31, 
state how many of the dates relate to such work. 

Ans. The men would work on a machine a short time to per- 
fect some small defect — set the machine up and try it. If it 
didn't work just right, take it down and make other changes. 

X 76. And did this work that you have referred to in your 
last answer continue during the period from Feb. 13, 1883, to 
May 4, 1883, as stated in your answer to Int. 31 ? 

Ans. I think it did. 

X 77. In your answer to Int. 34, you say you find one 
entry in the time-book which relates to the making of pails in 
the month of June, 1883, under date of June 12, 1883: "K 
P. Hanson, making pails, &c." What is the meaning of that 
entry ? 

Ans. It means that he made pails a portion of the day, and 
worked about the mill on odd jobs, too numerous to enter on 
the time-book. 

X 78. Do you find any other entries relating to the making 
of pails, in June, 1883 ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 79. From the time you went to Waterville, Oct. 17, 1882, 
up to the time the company practically ceased to do business, 
as stated by you, what wares, if any, were the company engaged 
in putting upon the market ? 

Ans. Wash basins. 

X 80. Does this time-book marked " Bodge Exhibit Fibre 
Ware Company Time-Book, 1882 and 1883," contain a record of 
the manufacture of any other articles, made during that period, 
except wash basins ? 

Ans. It does ; that portion of it covered by the time that I 
kept it. 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 279 



X 81. I refer to the record kept under heading " No Articles 
Made," wherein are daily entries of the number of articles man- 
ufactured. Does the time-book contain any record, during the 
years 1882 and 1883, of the number of pails manufactured or 
attempted to be manufactured by the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. It does not to my knowledge. 

X 82. Had the Fibre Ware Company, up to the time it 
ceased to do business, put upon the market pails manufactured 
by them? 

Ans. Not to mv recollection. 



Be-Direct Examination by Mr. Lunt, 

E. D. 83. Will you please refresh your recollection and 
state whether or not you can name any specific date when pails 
were made in any quantity at the works in Waterville ? 

[Counsel for Carmichael objects to the above question unless it 
appears what book is handed to the witness by Counsel for Bodge, 
and unless the same is produced for inspection — a book having 
been handed the witness at the time of putting this last inquiry.'] 

Ans. On August 31st, 1883, we made 24 to 26 good pails. 

E. D. 84. Do you know whether or not any completed pails 
were sent away from the Company's works to different parts of 
the country, during the year 1883, besides those you have 
already mentioned as having been sent to the office of Mr. 
Chisholm ? If so please state. 

Ans. I sent pails to the Messrs. Eussell, I think, to their 
Boston office. I sent pails to Mrs. Gardner, in Boston. I 
know of Mr. Bodge giving one to Conductor Jewett. I gave 
one to one conductor on the Maine Central Eoad, and there were 
several others given in Waterville to different parties. 

E. D. 85. How many pails were treated, hooped and fin- 
ished in 1883, prior to December? 



280 EDWARD C. O'BRION. 



Ans. I couldn't state exactly, nor approximately. I should 
think a hundred or more. 

E. D. 86. Can you say, with certainty, whether or not any 
pails were sold by the company to any dealer or dealers in 
Waterville prior to December, 1883 ? 

Ans. I cannot. 

E. D. 87. Can you state what was done with the pails 
which were finished up at the mill, besides those which were 
disposed of as you have stated? If you can, please do so. 

Ans. Mr. Bodge took away some, personally ; sent away 
others. My impression is that Mr. Eichards had some and 
some were burned in the building. 

E. D. 88. {Be bene esse.) Calling your attention to the iron 
hinged joints on the top of Bodge Exhibit Sectional Plunger, 
if you were shown a bill of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard's for the 
making of that part of the plunger in the first part of the year 
1883, would any doubts be raised in your mind as to whether 
that plunger was in its present condition when you first saw it? 

[ Objected to — as no such bill is shown witness, and it is in the 
highest degree objectionable to put an hypothetical question to the 
witness which assumes facts not proved in evidence and asks the 
witness to answer upon an hypothesis which is not shown to exist.'] 

Ans. I should say the bill wouldn't make any difference. 

Be- Cross- Examination by Mr. Libby. 

E. X 89. What book was handed you by counsel for Bodge 
when you were asked to refresh your recollection, in answering 
Int. 83 ? 

Ans. The Fibre Ware Letter Book No. 1. 

E. X 80. Will you produce the book for inspection ? 

[ Counsel for Bodge here states that in several cases where 
books have been introduced, and particularly the time-book which 
has been produced and certain portions of it specifically referred 
to, counsel for Carmichael, as well as Carmichael himself, in 



EDWARD C. O'BRION. 281 



gross disregard of the rights of the other party and contrary to 
rules of evidence and practice, have forthwith turned their atten- 
tion to the inspection of other portions of the books, not referred 
to in any other way, and not relating to the question at issue or 
matters inquired of and proceeded to make memorandums there- 
from / and they therefore decline to permit the same liberties to 
be taken with the Letter Book of the Fibre Ware Company ; 
and the witness cannot produce the book.'] 

[In vieiv of the refusal of Counsel for Bodge to permit the 
other party to this Interference to inspect papers and documents 
which are put into the hands of the witness, to enable the latter 
to testify, Counsel for Carmichael requests the magistrate to 
note upon the record his protest against this gross violation of 
the legal rights of Prof. Carmichael and his counsel ; and 
moves, in view of the same, that the evidence taken by counsel for 
Bodge, shall not be considered by the Patent Office until full op- 
portunity has been furnished counsel for Carmichael to exercise 
his full legal rights of cross examination. He further calls 
attention to the fact, appearing upon this record, that Prof. 
Carmichael is one of the large stockholders of the Fibre Ware 
Company and of the Indurated Fibre Company ; and as such, 
that he is entitled, under the laws of the State of Maine and the 
general laws of theland, to a full and free inspection of all papers, 
records, vouchers and documents of both of said corporations ; and 
that he has repeatedly requested permission of the officers of the 
Fibre Ware Company to inspect such records, papers, vouchers 
and documents, to enable him to get at facts which bear upon 
the truth of the issues contained in this Interference ; but that 
the same have been persistently ond studiously withheld from 
him and kept in the possession of counsel for Bodge, who are 
acting in concert with the officers of said company ; and that 
now a Letter-Book, which pertains to the business of the Fibre 
Ware Company during the very period involved in this contro- 
versy, and which it is fair to presume would disclose facts ma- 
terial to the presentation of this issue, and which has been used 
36— P. O. 



282 EDWAED C. O'BRION. 



to refresh the recollection of the witness now being examined on 
re-direct examination, is withheld from counsel for Garmichael, 
at a time when he wishes to cross-examine the witness upon the 
matters for which he has used the booh for the purpose above 
mentioned ; and in view of this flagrant disregard of his legal 
rights, he refuses to continue the cross-examination of this wit- 
ness, and remits the matter to the Patent Office for the determina- 
tion of his legal rights. . 

[Counsel calls attention to the provisions of the Revised Stat- 
utes of the State of Maine, as contained in §§ 10 and 19, of 
Chapter 46, of the revision of 1883. He requests further that 
the Examiner, who is the Clerk of the United States Circuit 
Court for this District, will, at his early convenience, forward 
so much of the record pertaining to this matter, as will bring 
the facts fully before the Patent Office for action.] 

By Counsel for Bodge. 
[ Counsel for Carmichael having concluded his testimony, 
Counsel for Bodge states : that the assertions made by Counsel 
for Carmichael are in all material parts, so far as the legal 
rights of his client are involved, erroneous and mistaken ; that 
said Carmichael has never made any legal demand upon the 
proper officers of the Fibre Ware Company for the inspection 
of its books and papers in relation to any stock interest which he 
had in said Company, and none of his legal rights have ever 
been denied him. Counsel for Carmichael has persisted in an 
irregular and illegal examination of witnesses called in behalf 
of Bodge, in the absence of any tribunal which could authorita- 
tively check him in so doing / that the toitness would undoubtedly 
have the right to refresh his own memory from any books, pa- 
pers or memoranda, without the same being made evidence, or 
subject to the inspection of. the opposing Counsel, provided the 
witness testifies from his own memory without relying upon such 
documentary matter / that no notice has ever been served upon 
Counsel for JSodge to produce any documents or books relating to 
the affairs of the Fibre Ware Company, and Counsel further 



WALTER S. DUNHAM. 283 

state, upon information and belief, that no such notice has ever 

been served upon the officers of the Fibre Ware Company, or of 

the Indurated Fibre Compnya.~\ 

Ans. No sir. 

EDWAED C. O'BEION. 

[Adjourned here to Monday, June 21, 1886, 9:30 a.m.] 



June 22, 1886, 2 p. m. 

It is agreed that the stipulation as to taking testimony entered 
into on this day and forwarded to the Patent Office, is not to 
be deemed or taken to be a waiver of the objections made by 
counsel for Carmichael on the 19th day of June, 1886, as to 
the alleged denial of his rights of cross-examination of the wit- 
ness, Edward C. O'Brion, which objections it is understood will 
be insisted on and urged at the hearing. 

CHAELES F. LIBBY, 

Counsel for Carmichael. 
JAS. H. LANGE, 
W. F. LUNT, 

Counsel for Bodge. 



June 2-1, 1886, 9:30 a. m. 

Walter S. Dunham, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 



284 WALTEK S. DUNHAM. 



Ans. Walter S. Dunham ; 34 years ; Waterville, Me. ; hard- 
ware dealer. 

2. In the months of June and July, 1882, where and by 
whom were you employed ? 

Ans. Waterville, Me., by W. B. Arnold & Company. 

3. What was the nature of your employment ? 

Ans. I was employed in the hard-ware business — as sales- 
man and book-keeper. 

4. State what book you have before you ? 

Ans. I have the Day-Book of W. B. Arnold & Company. 

5. Covering what period of time ? 

Ans. From Sept. 22, 1881, to Sept. 19, 1882. 

5%. Will you please look under the date of the 12th of July, 
1882, and state whether or not you find any entries there, made 
in your handwriting, relating to any business transaction with 
the firm of Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard ? 

Ans. I do. 

6. Upon what day were the entries or entry made, and 
what time in the day ? 

Ans. Made on Wednesday, July 12, 1882 — I should judge 
the latter part of the day. 

7. Will you please read the entry or entries ? 
[ Objected to — as incompetent.'] 

Ans. Lyon, Bragg & Hubbard, Dr. 

13M ft. 3 " Belt, (June 22) 2.70 

That is all. 

8. What is the next entry on the book, at that date ? 
Ans. Hubbard & Blake Mfg. Co., Cr. 

By error in Belting, (June 22) 2.70 

9. Will you please state the occasion of this last entry — or 
any circumstances connected with these charges ? 

Ans. I can't state anything positively — evidently there was 
an error. It was charged to Hubbard & Blake Mnfg. Com- 
pany, and should have been charged to Lyon, Biagg & Hubbard. 



B. FRANK BROWN. 285 



10. Aside from the entries made upon this book, have you 

any personal recollection of the circumstances connected with 
the making of these entries ? 

Arts. I have not. 

f To avoid objection to Int. 7, Counsel for Bodge introduces 
said Day Book, marked "Bodge Exhibit No. 25, Arnold <fb Co, 
Day Book— A. H. D., Mt?r, June 24, 1886."] 

[Cross-examination waived.] 

WALTEE S. DUNHAM. 

[Adjourned at 10:30 a. m., to June 22, 1886, 9:30 A. M.] 



June 22, 1886, 9:30 A. m. 

B. Frank Brown, 

Having been duly sworn, doth depose and say in answer to inter- 
rogatories proposed to him by Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., of 
Counsel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. B. Frank Brown ; 54 years ; Concord, N. H. ; Manu- 
facturer of wood pulp. 

2. State whether you know Franklin J. Eollins, of Port- 
land, Me., and Henry Carmichael, of Brunswick, Me. 

Ans. I do. 

3. Where were you, at noon-time, on the seventh day of 
March, 1884 ? 

Ans. At North Gorham, Me. 

4. Did you leave North Gorham that day ? 
Ans. I did. 

5. Did you have any company with you ? 



286 B. FRANK BROWN. 



Ans. I did. 

6. Who ? 

Ans. Franklin J. Eollins. 

7. Where did you go from North Gorham, with Mr. 
Eollins? 

Ans. I came to Portland and went to Brunswick. 

8. Where did you take supper that day ? 
Ans. At Brunswick depot, in the restaurant. 

9. After you had supper, where did you go and who was 
with you ? 

Ans. I went to Prof. Carmichael's house, in company with 
Franklin J. Eollins. 

10. About what time was it when you arrived there at his 
house ? 

Ans. Somewhere about seven in the evening. 

11. State whether you found Prof. Carmichael at home. 
Ans. I did. 

12. About what time did you leave Prof. Carmichael's house, 
at the time of your call with Mr. Eollins ? 

Ans. Near midnight. 

13. State whether Prof. Carmichael was at home in the 
house during all the time of this call ? 

Ans. He was not. 

14. State whether you and Mr. Eollins had any conversa- 
tion with Prof. Carmichael, after your arrival, and before Prof. 
Carmichael absented himself. 

[ Objected to — as leading — -for the reason that it does not ap- 
pear when Prof. Carmichael absented himself .~\ 

Ans. We did. 

15. State what took place after your arrival at Prof. Car- 
michael's house, on the evening of the 7th of March, 1884. 

Ans. We had a conversation with Prof. Carmichael in re- 
lation to the purchase of his indurating process. We had 
considerable talk in reference to price, and also in reference to 



B. FRANK BROWN. 287 



the merits of the process, and also in reference to organizing 
a company which should embody the patents of the Pre- 
sumpscot Ware Company, and those of the Waterville Fibre 
Ware Company ; also the patent of Joseph G. Bodge, and that 
of Prof. Carmichael ; also the real estate and all the per- 
sonal property belonging to the two first named companies ; 
and also embodying cash to the value of $25,000. We had 
some conversation about price to be paid to Mr. Bodge for his 
patent, but before we concluded the trade, Prof. Carmichael 
asked to be excused to deliver a lecture to his class at the 
college. I presume there was a good deal transpired that I 
shouldn't be able to remember. 

16. What was said about the Bodge Patent? 

Ans. Prof. Carmichael thought that the price that we 
named, which we had got to pay Mr. Bodge, was too high in 
proportion to what we thought his patent should go in at — as 
I had at that time a writing from Mr. Bodge agreeing to con- 
vey all of his interest in his patent for $6,000. Mr. Carmichael 
also claimed that he gave Mr. Bodge some hints in reference to 
the way in which he was forming the goods, and showed us an 
envelope with some sketches on it, and remarked that he thought 
that Mr. Bodge took — well, I can't say whether a part of his 
ideas or — all of his ideas from the sketch he made, I suppose, on 
the envelope. Then Mr. Carmichael went out, as before stated, 
left Mr. Eollins and myself, and, in his absence, Mr. Eollins 
made a draft of a trade embodying substantially what I have 
before stated. In answer to what Prof. Carmichael had to say 
about the price of the Bodge patent, I told him it was the 
lowest price I had been able to obtain. Mr. Eollins and I had 
some conversation in Prof. Carmichael's absence in reference to 
what the Professor had to say about giving hints to Mr. Bodge — 

[Counsel for Carmichael objects to conversation between this 
witness and Mr. Rollins as incompetent.^ 

[ Counsel for Bodge suggests to the witness that he need not 



288 B. FEANK BROWN. 



state what the conversation was between himself and Mr. Rollins, 
but may go on and state what took place after Prof. Carmichael 
returned.'] 

I think they brought us in some ice cream and cake. Mr. 
Eollins asked Prof. Carmichael if he had made any experiments in 
his laboratory or elsewhere to demonstrate the practical work- 
ing of his conceived invention. He said he had not. We con- 
summated the trade afterwards. 

17. What conceived invention was referred to ? 

Ans. We were talking, then, in reference to suggestions 
made to Mr. Bodge, in which the Professor claimed that it was 
his instead of Bodge's. 

18. Do you remember the color of the envelope, and its 
size? 

Ans. It was a buff envelope — T should say about a 9 inch 
envelope. 

19. Did you notice the sketches ? 

Ans. I noticed in particular one sketch, more than the 
others. 

20. Why ? 

Ans. From its being inverted, and drawn with colored lines 
— blue and red. 

21. Have you seen that envelope since ? 
Ans. I don't recollect of seeing it. 

22. Had you seen it before that time ? 
Ans. I don't recollect that I had. 

23. How many times were you ever at Prof. Carmichael's 
house with Mr. Eollins ? 

Ans. But once, I think. 

Cross-examination by Charles P. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Carmichael. 

X 24 By your last answer, do you mean that you are in 
doubt whether you were ever at Prof. Crrmichael's house with 



B. FRANK BROWN. 289 



Mr. F. J. Bollins at any other time than on the 7th day of 
March, 1884? 

Ans. No, I am quite positive that I never was. 

X 25. What have you to fix this date by, aside from any 
conversations you may have had with any persons about it ? 

Ans. I have seen the contract dated on that date, with my 
name as a witness to that contract. 

X 26. Was this the first time you had ever met met Prof. 
Carmichael ? 

Ans. It was not. 

X 27. When and where had you met him previously ? 

Ans. In Brunswick, at his house, on the first day of Feb- 
ruary, 1884 

X 28. Will you state the object of the visit last referred 
to? 

£ Objected to — matter not inquired of in direct examination.] 

Ans. It was in reference to trading for his indurating pro- 
cess — or patent. 

X 29. Who was with you ? 

[Same objection,] 

Ans. Charles D. Brown. 

X 30. At what time of the day was the visit made, and 
how long were you at the house of Prof. Carmichael during 
the interview last referred to ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. I arrived there some time in the forenoon. I was 
several hours with the Professor — dined with him, I think, 
that day. We were not all of the time at the house, but a 
part of the time at his recitation room at the College. 

X 31. Are you positive as to the date of the interview last 
referred to ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. Quite so. 

X 32. What makes you positive as to the date? 
37— P. 0. 



290 B. FKANK BBOWN. 



\_Same objection.'] 

Ans. From the fact that I came from Waterville on that 
morning in company with Mr. Charles D. Brown — having been 
in conference with Mr. Bodge the previous evening, negotiating 
for his patent. 

X 33. How does that fix the date as Feb. 1, 1884? 

[ Same objection.'] 

Ans. The papers drawn up by Col. Heath for Mr. Bodge to 
sign, were dated January 31st, and this was the following day. 

X 34. Are those events, the signing of an agreement at 
Waterville, and seeing Prof. Carmichael afterwards, so associated 
that you cannot be mistaken ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. It is putting it pretty strong — to put the question 
that I could not be mistaken, as there is a bare possibility that 
I might be mistaken ; but I think I am correct, however. 

X 35. Did you dine at Prof. Carmichael's on this day in 
February ? 

[Same objection.] 

Ans. I am quite sure that was the day, that I did dine with 
him. 

X 36. Who dined with you ? 

Ans. No one except Carmichael's family ; there was a lady 
there whom I took to belong to the family. I supposed her to 
be Prof. Carmichael's wife's mother. 

X 87. Did Prof. Carmichael, when you were there in Feb- 
ruary, talk with you about his having disclosed tc Mr. Bodge 
the features of his patent ? 

\_Same objection — and irrelevant.] 

Ans. I don't remember. 

X 38. Do you remember whether he then showed you the 
envelope on which he claimed to have drawn sketches of his 
invention, in the presence of Mr. Bodge ? 

[Same objection.] 



B. FRANK BROWN. 291 



Ans. I do not. 

X 39. In your answer to Int. 16, you say Prof. Carmichael 
"showed us an envelope with some sketches upon it, and re- 
marked that he thought Mr. Bodge took — well, I can't say 
whether a part of his ideas, or all of his ideas, from the sketch 
he made, I suppose, on the envelope." The form of your answer 
is such that I don't get clearly from you what the claim of Prof. 
Carmichael at that time was, or why you used the words " I 
suppose." Will you state clearly what you meant to say in 
that answer ? 

Ans. That I supposed Prof. Carmichael meant that Mr. 
Bodge took his ideas from the sketches on the envelope. 

X 40. What did Prof. Carmichael then claim to you about 
the envelope and his disclosure to Mr. Bodge ? 

Ans. He claimed, as I said before, that he made the sketches 
to show Mr. Bodge. 

X 41. To show him what ? 

Ans. I suppose his method for constructing machinery. 

X 42. Machinery to make what ? 

Ans. Making hollow ware from wood pulp. 

X 43. In your answer to Int. 17, you say, " We were talk- 
ing then in reference to suggestions made to Mr. Bodge, in 
which the Professor claimed that it was his instead of Bodge's. 
I don't clearly understand by your answer what you mean by 
the words " in which " and the word " it." Will you please ex- 
plain your meaning? 

Ans. I meant by the word it, the invention which we were 
purchasing from Mr. Bodge. 

X 44. By the words " in which," what do you refer to ; the 
conversation between you and Mr. Eollins and Prof. Carmi- 
chael, at his house, or to the word suggestions, as the gram- 
matical structure of the sentence would indicate ? 

Ans. I mean, in the conversation in which he was talking 
with us. 



292 B. FKANK BROWN. 



X 45. In this same answer to Int. 16, you say that in Prof. 
Carrnichael's [absence, " Mr. Kollins made a draft of a trade, 
embodying substantially what I have before stated." What 
do you mean that the contract embodied of your previous 
statements ? 

Ans. Substantially what Prof. Carmichael signed. It was 
a rough draft from which Prof. Carmichael copied in part, 
although Mr. Kollins named in the rough draft a different sum 
from what we had been talking about, hoping that the Pro- 
fessor would consent to a little lower price. 

X 46. What previous statements of yours as to this con- 
tract do you mean were embodied in it, by the language I have 
quoted ? 

Ans. Those in this contract (pointing to agreement of 
March 7, 1884). 

[Adjourned to June 23, 9:30 a. m.] 



June 23, 1886, 10 a. m. 

X 47. Have you given all of the conversation you had 
with Prof. Carmichael relating to the envelope he showed you 
having on it sketches which he claimed he made for Mr. 
Bodge ? 

Ans. Probably not ; but I could not remember it all in 
detail, perhaps. We had a good deal to say in reference to the 
different sketches which were on the envelope. 

X 48. After hearing the claim of Prof. Carmichael as to 
the ideas he had communicated to Mr. Bodge, and his state- 
ments as to the sketches on the envelope, by which he claimed 
to have shown Mr. Bodge the working of his device, did you 
make any suggestions to him as to what should be done with 
the envelope ? 

Ans. I don't recollect that I did. 



B. FEANK BKOWN. 293 



X 49. Did you suggest to him that he better tear the en- 
velope up or destroy it in any manner ? 

Ans. I have no recollection of any suggestion of that kind. 

X 50. You have made reference to a new company that 
you were interested in organizing, which was to succeed to the 
patents and rights and business of the Fibre Ware Company. 
Was that new company the present Indurated Fibre Company? 

Ans. That was the contemplated company. 

X 51. How early was that company organized ? 

Ans. I am not able to state ; but it is a matter of record, 
which could be easily found out. 

X 52. Had the agreement of association been entered into 
prior to March 7, 1884 ? 

Ans. Not fully, but generally mapped out. 

X 53. How early had you become interested in any way in 
the matters of the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. I was never interested in that company, only in the 
purchase of their franchise for this new contemplated company. 

X 54. When did you first hear of this claim of Prof. Car- 
michael, that he was the real inventor of the device patented 
by Mr. Bodge for forming articles of hollow ware from pulp ? 

Ans. I don't recollect. 

X 55. Had you heard of it before you met Prof. Carmichael 
in Brunswick ? 

Ans. I don't recollect .that I had. 

X 56. What did you understand his purpose was in making 
known to you his claim to the Bodge patent, and in showing 
to you this envelope ? 

Ans. I supposed he had an idea of claiming the invention 
as his own ; but I did not consider that he was much in earnest 
when he became a party to the purchase of the Bodge patent. 

X 57. Did Prof. Carmichael personally have anything to 
do with the purchase of the Bodge patent? 

Ans. When he agreed to accept $8,000 of the stock of the 



294 B. FRANK BKOWN. 



contemplated new company in part payment for his indurating 
process, he understood that $6,000 was to be paid for Mr. 
Bodge's patent. I considered that by that act he did have a 
personal interest. 

X 58. My question is whether he had anything personally 
to do with the purchase of the Bodge patent, not whether he 
accepted stock, which gave him a personal interest in the future 
success of that patent. Will you therefore answer the question 
as I have addressed it to you ? 

Ans. Indirectly he did, as the purchase of the Bodge patent 
would not have been consummated as it was without that action 
of his. 

X 59. Had you not already consummated your agreement 
for the purchase of the Bodge patent, before you first saw Prof. 
Carmichael in February, 1884 ? 

Ans. I think not fully. 

X 60. I understood you to say in answer to Int. 33, that 
the papers were dated January 31, 1884. Is that correct ? 

Ans. That was an agreement on the part of Mr. Bodge, and 
not a full settlement of the matter as I recollect it. 

X 61. Have you that agreement now; and if so, will you 
produce it? » 

Ans. I haven't it, in person. I will obtain it. [Agreement 
produced and handed to counsel for Carmichael.'] This is it. 

X 62. Will you have a copy of this document, consisting of 
three pages, made by the Examiner, to form a part of your 
deposition ? 

Ans. I will. 

[ Said copy of agreement introduced and marked: " Bodge 
Exhibit No. 26, Agreement of January 31, 1884, — A. H. I?., 
Mc'r, June 23, 1886."] 

X 63. Whatever personal or pecuniary interest Prof. Car- 
michael had, at the time he signed the agreement of March 7, 
1884, in the succe3S of the Bodge patent, by reason of being a 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 295 



large stockholder in the Indurated Fibre Company, he has that 
same interest to-day, has he not ? 
Ans. So far as I know. 

[Adjourned to 2 P. M., same day.] 



June 23, 1886, 2 p. m. 

X 64. Do you not know from communication with Prof. 
Carmichael, or otherwise, that the object he has in view in these 
Interference proceedings is, to vindicate the truthfulness of 
the charges that he has constantly made, that Mr. Bodge ob- 
tained from him the ideas embodied in his patent ; and that in 
so doing he is necessarily acting to his own pecuniary disadvan- 
tage? 

[ Objected to — irrelevant, calling for the opinion of witness on 
matter not inquired of on direct examination.'] 

Ans. It would seem so from recent communications with 

Prof. Carmichael. 

B. PRANK BEOWK 

[Adjourned to June 25, 1886, 10 A. m.] 



June 25, 1886, 10 a. m. 
Newel P. Hanson, 

Being duly sworn, doth depose and say in answer to interroga- 
tories proposed to him by James H. Lange, Esq., of Coun- 
sel for Bodge, as follows, to wit : 

Int. 1. What is your name, age, residence and occupation ? 
Ans. Newel P. Hanson ; 50 years ; Waterville, Me. ; Car- 
riage-maker. 



296 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



2. Where did you reside in the year 1882, and what was 
your occupation in the early part of said year ? 

Ans. In the spring of 1882, I lived in Windham and 
worked at Great Falls, Gorham, Me. 

3. At what place in Great Falls ? 

Ans. The village where the pulp- mills now are — where they 
make this hollow ware at the present time. 

4. What was the nature of your work in the spring of 1882 
at Great Falls, and for whom did you work ? 

Ans. At the first of my working there, I worked at car- 
penter work ; and a good deal of the time, shortly after I went 
there, I worked in the black-smith's shop. As I understand it 
1 was working under Mr. J. G. Bodge for the Presumpscot Pulp 
Ware Company. 

5. What articles, if any, were made at the Presumpscot 
Pulp Ware Company ; and what machines, if any, were em- 
ployed in the production of such articles, at the time you were 
at work there in the spring of 1882 ? 

Ans. Pails were made there. They used for forming the 
pails what they called a suction process. 

6. Whose machines were employed in the formation of 
pails by the Presumpscot Pulp Ware Company, in the spring 
of 1882 ? 

Ans. I understood it to be Chase's patent. 

7. Do you know the full name of Mr. Chase, whose ma- 
chine you refer to ? 

Ans. William Chase, as I understand it. 

8. When did you leave the employ of the Presumpscot 
Pulp Ware Company, after working for said company in the 
spring of 1882, under Mr. J. G. Bodge ? 

Ans. I can't fix any date, but I think it must be in the 
early part of May, 1882. 

9. After leaving said employ, when next did you see Mr. 
J. G. Bodge? 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 297 



Ans. I think some time in June — the next June after leav- 
ing Great Falls in May. 

10. Where did you see him ? 

Ans. I saw him in Gorham, in the street near my house. 

11. How long did you see him at this time, and what, 
if anything, did you do ? 

Ans. At this present time I should think I might have seen 
him a half an hour. He talked with me about his being at 
Waterville ; wanted to know if I wouldn't go down there to 
work for him, if he should want me to ; asked me if I could 
run an engine-lathe ; said that he was experimenting on pails ; 
and thought that I understood his ideas pretty well, and thought 
I would be just the man that he wanted. He said that he 
wanted to see Mr. Fogg, and wanted to know if I had a team 
that I could carry him up to Mr. Fogg's that afternoon. I told 
him I had, and did so — carried him up the same afternoon. 
That was the result of our conversation at the present time. 

12. If you had any conversation with Mr. Bodge when you 
took him up to see Mr. Fogg in the afternoon, or during the 
trip, will you please relate what was said ? 

Ans. He inquired of me what Chase's folks were doing and 
how they were working their pails. I told him they were mak- 
ing a few pretty good pails, I thought; was pressing them with 
hydraulic pressure, with a rubber bag, from the inside, and they 
was having very poor success in pressing. He made the remark 
that they were working on the wrong principle ; says, if ever 
there was a good pail made, it would have to be pressed — would 
have to be formed and pressed from the outside. He says : 
That is the principle that I am experimenting on now. He 
asked me at the same time if I considered myself much of an 
inventor. I told him that I never had had much practice in 
inventing ; thought I should do better by working as a mechanic 
from somebody's else ideas. 
38— P. O. 



298 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



13. At the time of this conversation, did you understand 
how pails were pressed in the Chase process ? 

Ans. I think I did. 

14. Please describe how they were pressed. 

Ans. They had what they called a hydraulic press. It had 
a hollow casting lined with perforated brass. Also the per- 
forated brass was lined with wire gauze. The pail was set 
inside of this cast-iron form that I have just described. This 
former swung round under the hydraulic press. The press was 
closed; a rubber bag let down inside of the pail. This bag 
was filled with water from a pump to expand the bag in order 
to press the pail. 

15. In your last answer you say : " The pail was set inside 
of this cast-iron form." Will you please state whether or not 
said pail was made or formed on that press ? 

Ans. It was not formed on that press. 

16. Please describe the machine on which it or a like pail 
was formed by the Chase process, if you know. 

Ans. There was a white iron — I might call it a case — in 
the first place, that would hold five or eight gallons. There 
was another cast iron former, I think they called it, lined with 
wire gauze. They set this inside of the white iron case that I 
spoke of. They let the stock in from a tank overhead and 
started their suction pump. While the suction pump was 
sucking the water from the pulp, they had a sort of a bucket 
like, with a valve in the bottom, they would sink into the 
inside of this former. As I understood it, this was to take out 
the surplus stock that they found — if they found that they had 
let in a little too much. 

17. After this conversation with Joseph G. Bodge, at the 
time that you drove him over to see Mr. Fogg, as stated by you, 
did you enter the employ of the Fibre Ware Company, at 
Waterville, Me. ? And if yea, state when. 

Ans. I did, the 15th of February, 1883. 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 299 



18. Did you see Mr. Bodge, to converse with hiin, at any- 
time after your conversation with him in June, as previously 
stated by you, and prior to entering the employ of the Fibre 
Ware Company, on the loth of February, 1883 ? 

Ans. I saw him, but I didn't converse with him. 

19. How many times did you see him within the period men- 
tioned ? 

Ans. Once. 

20. Where ? 
Ans. At Gorham. 

21. Under what circumstances ? 

Ans. He was home, I think, to attend the funeral of his son. 

22. State the nature of your work at the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany, after entering its employ, Feb. 15, 1883. 

Ans. The first that I done was to sheathe up a dry-house 
in the dip-shop, for drying of basins. After finishing that, I 
went to work on the pail machine. 

23. How long, after entering the employ of the Fibre Ware 
Company, was it that you first began to work on the pail ma- 
chine ? 

Ans. As near as I can recollect, from four to six weeks. 

2-1. Of what material was this machine you refer to, con- 
structed ? 

Ans. Cast-iron. 

25. Please describe the construction of that machine, refer- 
ring by name to the principal or essential parts of said machine. 

Ans. It had a cast-iron flat top — what we call a dome. It 
had what we call a perforated former. This perforated former 
was covered with wire gauze. Inside of the dome they had a 
moulded rubber bag — or we used a rubber bag. This perforated 
former raised up inside of the rubber bag. It had what we 
call a stock ring, that we let the stock into the machine between 
the bag and former ; and then we put on a pressure — water 



300 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



pressure — outside of the rubber bag between the dome and bag, 
to press the water from the pulp to form the pail. 

26. State whether or not you were ever employed in oper- 
ating said machine to form pails ? 

Ans. I was. 

27. State the condition of the pails which you first formed 
on this machine ? 

Ans. The first few pails wasn't perfect pails ; after a few 
days experimenting we made some very good pails, that we 
finished up. 

28. State, as near as you can, how long after you entered 
the employ of the Fibre Ware Company, you made good pails 
upon this machine. 

Ans. It might have been in the neighborhood of two 
months. 

29. Previous to this machine, do you know whether any 
other iron machine for making pails had been set up or used 
at the works of the Fibre Ware Company ? 

Ans. All I know about it is, I heard them speaking of 
another machine that they had tried. 

[ Objected to — as hearsay, and motion to strke out made.'] 

30. Eeferring to the machine which you employed or op- 
erated in making pails, will you please state whether or not, at 
any time, you were regularly employed on said machine in 
making pails ? 

[ Objected to — as leading.] 

Ans. I was, with the exception of occasionally I had to be 
taken off to do some little repairs about the mill. 

31. What was the condition of these pails made on said 
machine, while you were regularly employed in operating said 
machine ? 

Ans. The most of them were good pails. 

32. State, if you can, the number of pails you made upon 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 301 



this machine in any one day, when it was being regularly 
operated by you. 

Ans. The best day's work that I can call to mind was from 
35 to 40 pails, I should judge. 

33. State, if you can, when you quit work on this ma- 
chine. 

Ans. We never abandoned it entirely ; but I left that ma- 
chine, as nigh as I can recollect, some time in August, 1883. 

34. After you left the machine referred to, in August, 1883, 
what next did you do ? 

Ans. I went to work setting up what we called the New 
Machine. 

35. State, if you can, when this new machine was set up, 
and who were employed in setting it up. 

Ans. We set it up some time in August, 1883, I think. I 
was employed on it and my son, Frank M. Hanson. We was 
all the regular hands, you might say. There was a young fel- 
low by the name of Boynton that would help us off and on, as 
we needed extra help. 

36. I show you photographs Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5. Will 
you please state, if you know, what they represent ? 

Ans. They represent what we called the New Machine. 

37. Do you know who are the persons represented in said 
photographs ? And if yea, state the names. 

Ans. Myself, Newel P. Hanson, and Joseph G. Bodge. 

38. When were the photographs taken ? 

Ans. In a very few days, I think, after we got so we could 
operate the machine. 

39. What month and year was that, if you can state ? 
Ans. The same year, but I couldn't state positive what 

month. 

40. How long after the machine was set up ? 
Ans. I should say 3 or 4 days. 

41. Will you please state whether in your answers to Ints. 



302 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



34 and 36 you refer to one and the same machine, by the 
words " New Machine," or to different machines ? 

Ans. I refer to one machine, when I speak of the New Ma- 
chine. 

42. Did you operate the New Machine, represented in pho- 
tographs, Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, before said photographs were 
taken ? 

Ans. I am very positive that we did — very certain of it. 

43. Upon what machine was made the pail illustrated in 
the foreground of the photographs, Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5 ? 

Ans. The pail, without being hooped, was made on the New 
Machine, as we called it. 

44. Calling your attention to the hooped and bailed pail, 
which is shown in the photograph, Exhibit No. 4, will you 
please state upon what machine said pail was made ? 

Ans. Upon what we called the Old Machine, the first ma- 
chine that I operated. 

45. After the New Machine, represented in photographs, 
Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5, was set up and put in condition to be 
operated, were you employed in operating said machine in the 
formation of pails ? 

Ans. I was. 

46. After said machine was set up, were you also employed in 
hooping pails made on said machine ? 

Ans. I was. 

47. State the highest number of pails, in any one lot, that 
you so hooped. 

Ans. It might have been 200. 

48. How many pails in all, which were made on the New 
Machine, did you hoop ? 

Ans. I couldn't state positively. 

49. State approximately, or as near as you can. 
Ans. It might have been 50. 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 303 



50. When did you leave the employ of the Fibre Ware Com- 
pany at Waterville ? 

Ans. The 1st of December, 1883. 

51. Will you please state, as near as you can, the total 
number of pails made on the New Machine, which pails you 
hooped before leaving said employ ? 

Ans. Possibly there might have been 50 of them. 

52. How many pails, made on the Old Machine did you 
hoop ? 

Ans. I should judge there might have been between two 
and three hundred. 

53. I ask the Examiner to read to you questions and an- 
swers 45, 46 and 47 ; and then ask you to state what you mean 
or intend to convey by your answer to Int. 47. 

[Said Ints. and answers read.'] 

Ans. I mean by that — that as nigh as I can recollect, there 
were about 200 of them. 

54. We:e the various pails that you hooped, all treated and 
bailed ready for use or sale ? 

[ Objected to — as leading.'] 

Ans. All that I hooped was treated and bailed — with the 
exception of one or two that I hooped out of curiosity with- 
out being treated. 

55. State whether or not you ever employed or put to use 
any of these pails that you hooped. 

Ans. I did. 

56. Where ? 

Ans. I had two myself that I used. I brought two to 
Windham — gave one to my brother and one to my sister. 

57. Where did you use the two that you had — referred to 
in you last answer ? 

Ans. In and about my house, at Waterville. 

58. When did you first put them to use ? 
Ans. I couldn't state positively. 



304 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



59. State as near as you can. 

Ans. It might have been three months after I went to 
Waterville. 

60. Can you state when you gave the pails to your brother 
and sister ? 

Arts. I can't positively. 

61. State approximately, or as near as you can, without 
attempting to fix the exact date. 

Ans. I should think it might have been the 1st of August, 
1883. 

62. What has become of the two pails that you used at 
your house at Waterville? 

Ans. One of them I can't seem give any account of — the other 
one got a piece broke out of the top. I sawed it off and put on 
some ears — some little rings on the side ; used it for a while 
for a keeler for washing dishes ; afterwards we used it for a 
coal-hod. I think it is in existence now, around the woodshed. 

63. How long was the pail last referred to used as a pail, 
before the piece was broken out of the top ? 

Ans. I should think a year or more. 

[Adjourned to 2:30 P. M., same day.] 



June 25, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 

Cross-Examination hy Charles F. Libby, Esq., Counsel for 
Carmichael. 

X 64. In your answer to Int. 48, you state, in substance, 
that you may have hooped in all 50 pails, which were made on 
the New Machine; and in your answer to Int. 47. you say, in 
substance, that you may have hooped 200 in one lot made by 
said machine. How do you reconcile those statements ? 

Ans. I didn't understand that this one lot referred to one 



t 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 30; 



machine. I understood it that it referred to the greatest num- 
ber of pails that I hooped at one time, not referring to any par- 
ticular machine. 

X 65. How many completed pails, in good order, are you 
willing to testify were made on all the machines in use at the 
works of the Fibre Ware Company in Waterville, when you 
were in their employ in 1883 ? 

Ans. I can't state positively that any certain number ; but 
should think that there might be perhaps 300 in all. 

X 66. I am asking about completed pails in good order. 
Does your last answer refer to such pails ? 

Ans. We considered them in good order — that was what I 
was referring to in the pails that we hooped. 

X 67. During any time that you were in the employ of the 
Fibre Ware Company in the year 1883, had the making of pails 
for the market become any part of the regular business of said 
company ? 

Ans. I don't know of their selling any pails, if that will 
answer your question. 

X 68. What were they engaged in making and putting on 
the market ? 

[Objected to — not referring to any matters inquired of in di- 
rect examination.] 

Ans. Wash basins. 

X 69. In your answer to Int. 30, which in a leading form 
asked if you were at any time regularly employed in making 
pails, on the first iron machine you described, you say you were. 
What do you mean in that answer by being regularly employed, 
and for how long a time ? 

Ans. I couldn't state for how long a time, positively. I 
mean that I was to work on the machine the most of the time 
for some while — with the exception of occasionally I would be 
called off to do some small repairs about the mill. 
39— P. O. 



306 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



X 70. How long a time would it take, on an average, to 
make a pail on that machine ? 

Ans. I timed myself several times. I should say it might 
have taken, on an average, 15 minutes. 

X 71. Wouldn't it take more time than that ? 

Ans. Sometimes it would take more time — sometimes less, 
as near as T can remember. 

X 72. Isn't 15 minutes about the shortest time in which a 
pail can be made on the best machine ? 

Ans. I couldn't say. 

X 73. In how much shorter time than 15 minutes did you 
ever make a good pail, on the machine referred to? 

Ans. I couldn't say, positively. 

X 74. In your answer to Int. 9, you say that you think you 
saw Mr. J. G. Bodge some time in June, 1882, and had a con- 
versation with him. How positive are you that that was in 
June and not in July ? 

Ans. In our conversation, he spoke of that he might be 
home again to look after his haying ; and another thing, his 
son died soon after my talking with him, and 1 am quite posi- 
tive that that was some time in July. 

X 75. How long after your talk with him did his son die ? 

Ans. I have no way of stating that positively. 

X 76. In your answer to Int. 74, you say, "soon after." 
Can't you tell me how long a time you mean by " soon after" 
in that answer ? 

Ans. It might have been a few weeks. 

X 77. Is that the nearest you can fix it? 

Ans. It is. 

X 78. How does the reference to haying fix it as being in 
June ? Does not haying in this State often take place even in 
August ? 

Ans. What I meant by my answer was the way I under- 



NEWEL P, HANSON. 307 



stand the commencement of haying, somewheres about the 1st 
of July. 

X 79. Do you know at what time Mr. Bodge cut his hay 
in the year 1882 ? 

Ans. I do not. 

X 80. In that conversation which you have referred to with 
Mr. Bodge, did he tell you that he was experimenting on a 
plunger machine ? 

Ans. I have no recollection of his speaking of any particu- 
lar machine. 

X 81. Did he ever tell you from Whom he got the idea of 
the rubber bag. which he afterwards used on the iron machine X 

[ Objected to — as referring to a matter not inquired of in the 
direct examination.'] 

Ans. Yes, he spoke of a rubber bag that we was experi- 
menting with. He spoke of a rubber bag that we was using on 
the iron machine being Carmichael and Smith's idea. 

X 82. When was this ? 

[Same objection, and motion made to strike from the record."] 

Ans. I couldn't state positively, when it was. 
X 83. Didn't he state to you that he got the idea of the 
rubber bag from Prof. Carmichael ? 
[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I understood him as speaking of this bag that we was 
using — this bag that we was using was their idea of such a bag 
as that — I mean referring to that particular bag. 

X 84. What do you mean by that particular bag, in your 
last answer ? , 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. Well, I mean this: as near as I can remember the 
words, he says, " this bag was Carmichael's and Smith's idea 
and ain't worth a damn." 

X 85. Didn't you tell Prof. Carmichael last spring, in 



308 NEWEL V. HANSON. 



Waterville, that Mr. Bodge told you one day in 1883, that he 
had got the idea of the rubber bag from Carmichael ? 
[ Same objection and motion.'] 

Ans. I told Mr. Carmichael about this rubber bag somewhere 
as near as I can recollect, as I have stated it before. I remember 
of his laughing when I put on the damn. 

X 86. [Qiiestion repeated.] 

Ans. I have answered that to the best of my remembrance 
— to the best of my recollections. 

[Same objection and motion.] 

X 87. When you told Prof. Carmichael last spring in 
Waterville about Mr. Bodge's saying that he got the idea of a 
rubber bag of him, Carmichael, did you say anything to Prof. 
Carmichael at that time about Mr. Smith's name being coupled 
with his by Mr. Bodge ? 

[Same objection and motion; and the question is further 
objected to as a misstatement of the previous testimony of the 
witness under objection.] 

Ans. I don't recollect of using Mr. Smith's name at that 
time. 

X 88. Subsequently to this conversation with Prof. Car- 
michael, last spring, when you told him about what Mr. Bodge 
had said to you, as to where he got the idea of the rubber bag, 
did Prof. Carmichael call to see you again at Waterville ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. He did. 

X 89. Did you then refuse to talk with him about the 
matters in controversy in this Interference ? 
[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I did not strictly refuse. I told him, as near as I can 
recollect, that I had got tired of being— I think I said— 
drummed on this subject. When I was called on, if I was 
at all, I would state the thing as near as I could recollect, let 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 309 



it benefit either parties. I think that was the objection that 
I made — as near as I can remember it, any way. 

X 90. Who had tired or " drummed " you on this subject ? 

[Same objection and motion."] 

Ans. I think it would be hard work for me to remember 

air. 

X 91. State those you can remember. 

[Same objection and motion^] 

Ans. Well, Mr. Carmichael had talked with me about it 
before. Mr. Bodge, Mr. Bates Mr. Jerry Furbush, Orel Stevens, 
Mr. Williams — well, I suppose I could set here and name over 
some little time, if it was necessary. 

X 92. If there are any others, you may name them. 

[Same objection and motion ] 

Ans. Thomas Smart talked with me about it. Mr. Henry 
Wilbur, and I presume there were some others, but I don't seem 
to bring their names to mind at the present time. 

X 93. How many times had you talked with Mr. S. W. 
Bates about this matter, before you came here to give this 
deposition ? 

Ans. I couldn't say positively how many times. After 
knowing of this case, and being well acquainted with Mr. 
Bates, and he andhis brother boarding a horse at my son's stable, 
I would very often, when I saw him come to the stable, go out 
and ask him how he was getting along, &c. 

X 94. Which side of the controversy did you understand 
Mr. Bates represented — Bodge or Carmichael ? 

Ans. I understood that he was representing the company. 

X 95. What company ? 

Ans. The Indurated Fibre Company. 

X 96. Had Prof. Carmichael talked with you more than 
once, up to the time that you refused to talk with him further 
about it ? 

Ans. As I recollect it, he had. 



>10 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



X 97. How many times ? 

Ans. I couldn't say positive — I think it might have been 
twice. I remember of his calling at the shop once and intro- 
duced himself to me ; that was the first time I ever saw him, 
to know him. I recollect once afterwards of Mr. Peterson call- 
ing me ; he said Mr. Carmichael would like to see me. Those 
are the only times I can state positively before the last time 
spoken of. 

[Adjourned here, 4:30 p. m., to June 28, 1886, 12 m.] 



June 28, 1886, 12 m. 

X 98. Up to the time of this last call of Prof. Carmichael 
upon you, when you refused to talk with him about the matter 
in controversy, had you not, prior to that time, talked with him 
freely and voluntarily about the same matter? 

[Same objection and motion.'] 

Ans. I had talked with him several times, and made the re- 
mark that there were some questions that he asked that I did 
not feel free to answer; other questions I answered to the best 
of my recollection. 

X 99. What questions did he ask that you did not feel free 
to answer ? 

\_Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. As I understood the question, he was referring to Mr. 
Bodge's character. I don't think of any other one at that time. 
X 100. Why did you not feel free to answer it ? 
[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I thought it wouldn't show good principle in me to 
rake up a man's character. 

X 101. At a previous call of Prof. Carmichael upon you in 
Waterville, had you not voluntarily told him that Mr. Bodge 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 311 



stated to you at one time that be got the idea of a rubber bag 
from Prof. Carmichael ? 

[Same objection and motion.'] 

Ans. I couldn't say positive whether I said it voluntarily 
or not. I think that by his conversation it put me in mind of 
that, and I made some such a remark. 

X 102. * At the time of Prof. Carmichael's last call upon you, 
when you refused to talk about the matter, did he not recall to 
you what you had previously stated to him Mr. Bodge had 
said about the use of a rubber bag ; and did you not reply to 
him that you had blurted that out without reflection, and that 
you were sorry for it as soon as you had said it — or words to 
that effect ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. He spoke about it. I said that T was sorry that I 
had said anything about it at all — I think that is the way I 
worded it. 

X 108. Did you not at that time further say, that you 
would not appear to testify if you could get money enough to 
pay your fine for not obeying the summons — or words to that 
effect ? 

[Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I said that I should rather pay the fine, if I had the 
money. I didn't consider that it would pay me anything to 
lose my time and go there. 

X 104 . Did you not at that time further say, that you had 
been taken to Portland, and had been questioned there so much 
by Podge's Attorneys that you had got tired, and did not mean 
to remember anything about the matter — or words to that 
effect? 

Ans. I never said nothing about Podge's attorney. I made 
a remark about being questioned, or drummed — and had got 
tired of it. I might have said that I had been to Portland. I 



312 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



furthermore remember of his asking me the question — I told 
him I had been to Portland, I think. 

X 105. When had you been to Portland? 

Ans. Some time previous to his calling on me. 

X 106. At whose request did you go to Portland ? 

Ans. Mr. Bates'. 

X 107. For what purpose did you go? * 

Ans. As I understood it, for an evidence in this case. 

X 108. How long was that before you appeared here to 
give your testimony ? 

Ans. I think it must have been some three weeks. 

X 109. Where were you taken when you came to Portland, 
and whom did you see and talk with about this case? 

Ans. I first went to the Indurated Fibre Company's office ; 
they sent me here to this office ; I talked with Mr. Bates. 

X 110. Did you talk with anybody else about the case ? 

Ans. No sir. 

X 111. How did it happen that after that visit to Portland, 
you were much less communicative to Prof. Carmichael about 
these matters, than you had been previously? 

Ans. As far as that goes, I was less communicative with 
any one, whoever undertook to talk with me about it, for the 
very reason that I thought it would be better for me to make 
my talk when I was called on — if I was called on at all. 

X 112. Had you not previously talked freely with Mr. 
Bates about these matters, and allowed him to take full min- 
utes of your statements ? 

Ans. I had talked with Mr. Bates several times ; made in- 
quiries about the case myself from him. At no time there in 
our conversation did he take any minutes of my conversation, 
to my knowledge. 

X 113. Do you mean by that, that you do not know that 
Mr. Bates had taken minutes of your statements to him about 
these matters ? 



NEWEL P. HANSON. 313 



Arts. Not at these times that I refer to in our conversation. 

X 114. My question relates to any time before your exam- 
ination commenced, as I mean to put it. 

Ans. Well, I talked with him at the time of our conver- 
sation that I now refer to. He was writing occasionally 
through our conversation. I never asked him, nor he never 
told me, what he was writing, and I never saw the writing to 
my knowledge. 

X 115. Why were you not willing, at the time of his las^ 
visit, to grant to Prof. Carmichael the same facilities to get at 
your knowledge of the facts of this case, as you afforded to Mr. 
Bates ? 

Ans. As I previously stated, I thought it would be better 
for me, and all parties concerned, to make my talk when I 
was called on. I made this same remark to him at that time. 

X 116. What had changed your ideas on this point, be- 
tween his earlier and later visit to you ? 

Ans. By thinking the matter over, I thought it would be 
better fcr me to make no outside talk — to do my talking when 
I was called on. 

[Before resuming the direct examination counsel for JBodge 
states that it is subject to the objections and motion made by 
him under cross-examination y and that the same will be urged at 
the hearing.'} 

Be-Direct Examination by Mk. Lange. 

E. D. 117. In your answer to X Int. 81, you refer to a rub- 
ber bag that you were experimenting with or using on the iron 
machine. Will you please state to what rubber bag you refer 
and describe the same ? 

Ans. It was a thick, rigid rubber, with a wide flange, 
smaller on top than any bag that they had been experimenting 
with — also flat topped and less flexible. 

40 — P. 0. N0SNIX3I0 



31-4 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



E. D. 118. What was done with that bag? 

Ans. It was — well, I don't understand that question exactly. 

R D. 119. Was that bag used on the iron machine; and if 
so, what was the result of its use ? 

Ans. It was used on the iron machine several times. The 
result was poor every time. 

E. D. 120. What was afterwards done with the rubber bag 
referred to, if anything ? 

Ans. I put a rubber flange on the top to help expand it ; 
after doing so, we tried it ; we had no success ; took it off from 
the machine and laid it away. That is the last I recollect of 
the bag. 

[Adjourned to 2:30 same day.] 



June 28, 1886, 2:30 p. m. 

E. D. 121. State, as near as you can, about how long after 
you began work at the Fibre Ware Company's mill was it that 
this rubber bag which you have described in answer to Int. 117 
was first used or put on the iron machine? 

Ans. It might have been six weeks, possibly two months. 

E. D. 122. Please state whether or not, at any other time, 
Mr. Bodge said anything to you about any other rubber bag 
being Carmichael's and Smith's idea, or Carmichael's idea alone. 

[ Objected to — as leading, not calling for what was said.'] 

Ans. I have no recollection of his referring to any other 
bag or bags, of their ideas. 

E. D. 123. Other than the rubber bag, previously referred 
to and described by you in answer to Int. 117, will you please 
state whether at any time during your employ at the works of the 
Fibre Ware Company, Mr. Bodge ever stated to you that the idea 
of a rubber bag was Prof. Carmichael's or that he got the idea 
of a rubber bag from Prof. Carmicb.ael ? 



NEWEL P. HANSON". 315 



[ Objected to — as leading.'] 

Ans. Only at this time that I have previously spoken of. 

R D. 124. Who is the Mr. Smith to whom you have re- 
ferred in connection with Prof. Carmichael ? 

Ans. He was a Mr. Smith from Massachusetts, as I under- 
stood it, that the company employed to help out some on their 
experiments. 

Re-Cross-Examination by Me. Libby. 

E. X 125. You have been inquired of on the re-direct, as to 
statements of Mr. Bodge relating to the use of the rubber bag. 
Will you now please give the whole conversation of Mr. Bodge 
with you on that subject, as previously stated by you to Prof. 
Carmichael ? 

[Same objection and motion.'] 

Ans. We was working with this particular bag, that I speak 
of; and he (Bodge) said, "This bag was Smith's and Carmi- 
chael's idea, and it ain't worth a damn." That is as near as I 
can remember the conversation. 

E X. 126. In your previous testimony ycu stated, as I 
understand it, that you did not mention Smith's name to Prof. 
Carmichael. Didn't you also state to Prof. Carmichael, as a 
part of the statement made by Mr. Bodge, that Bodge said that 
the use of a rubber bag was a failure, and that he was going 
back to the thin rubber — or words to that effect ? 

[/Same objection and motion.] 

Ans. I have no recollection of ever saying anything about 
the rubber bag being a failure ; but I think I did say that we 
was going back or did go back on to the thin rubber. 

E. D. 127. After you had stated to Prof. Carmichael about 
Bodge's admitting to you that he got the idea of a rubber bag 
from Prof. Carmichael, did not Prof. Carmichael immediately 
ask you how it happened that Mr. Bodge should make such an 



316 NEWEL P. HANSON. 



admission to you ; and did you not reply that you were then 
on very friendlv terms with Bodge, and that he talked quite 
freely with you about his matters ? 

[Same objection and motion / and the question is further ob- 
jected to as not proper cross-examination.'] 

Ans. I have no recollections of a direct question from Mr. 
Carmichael, of that kind at that time. I might have said that 
Mr. Bodge and myself was on friendly terms, for the very 
reason that we had been for several years. 

NEWEL P. HANSON. 



CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINER. 317 



CEETIFICATE OF EXAMINER. 



District of Maine, ss: 

I, A. H. Davis, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United 
States for the District of Maine, Examiner, do hereby certify 
that the foregoing depositions of Franklin J. Rollins, George S. 
Winn, George J. Damery, Daniel Brooks, Joseph W. Libby, 
Elbridge S. Bodge, William C. Hinds, Asa J. Lyon, William A. 
Bodge, Nellie E. Bodge, Joseph G. Bodge, Edward C. O'Brion, 
Walter S. Dunham, B. Frank Brown, and Newel P. Hanson, 
were taken on behalf of Joseph G. Bodge, in pursuance of stip- 
ulations entered into between counsel, as appears of record 
herein, before me, at the office of Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., 57 Ex- 
change St., in the city of Portland, in said district, on the days 
following, to wit : May 28 to June 28, 1886, both inclusive ; 
that each of said witnesses was by me duly sworn before the 
commencement of his testimony ; that the testimony of each of 
said witnesses was written out by myself, or by my direction, 
by consent of counsel; that the opposing party, Henry Car- 
michael, was present in person and by counsel during the tak- 
ing of said testimony ; that said testimony was taken at said 
office of Wilbur F. Lunt, Esq., and was commenced at 9:30 A. M. 
on the 28th day of May, 1886, was continued pursuant to 
adjournment on the days set out in the record, and was con- 
cluded on the 28th day of June, 1886 ; that I am not connected 
by blood or marriage with either of said parties, nor interested 
directly or indirectly in the matter in controversy. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and 
affixed my seal of office at Portland, in said district, this 28th 
day of June, 1886. 

[l. s.] A. H. DAYIS, 

Clerk V. S. Circuit Court for the 
District of Maine, 

Examiner. 






333 90 












°- %<** * 












■*<?* 



p . * « *»^ <r >i» • " ° at ^ • » ■• • «*" 






r 






>°v 










°w. *•- 






^ v*, 



«5^ 






f HECKMAN 

BINDERY INC. 

-^ OCT 90 



With N. MANCHESTER, 
INDI ANA 46962 _ 




